Case Title: Denston v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 560, 2008

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GREGORY A. DENSTON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 560, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9905011124 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: March 25, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 25th day of March 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Gregory A. Denston, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s October 20, 2008 order denying his fourth motion 
for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
(2) 
In June 1999, Denston was indicted on charges of Attempted 
Murder in the First Degree and two counts of Criminal Solicitation in the 
First Degree.  In September 2001, pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, 
Denston pleaded guilty to two counts of Criminal Solicitation in the First 
 
2
Degree.  The charge of Attempted Murder in the First Degree was 
dismissed.  Denston was sentenced to a total of ten years incarceration at 
Level V, without the benefit of good time.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Denston claims that recorded conversations in 
which he solicited an undercover policeman to kill his former wife should 
have been suppressed and, therefore, the Superior Court abused its discretion 
when it denied his fourth motion for postconviction relief.   
 
(4) 
The record reflects that Denston’s fourth postconviction motion 
repeats the claims made in his third postconviction motion, which the 
Superior Court previously denied.  As such, Denston’s claims are 
procedurally barred as formerly adjudicated.2  Moreover, Denston has failed 
to overcome the procedural bar by demonstrating that reconsideration of the 
claims is warranted in the interest of justice.3  We, therefore, conclude that 
there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in denying 
Denston’s motion and that the judgment of the Superior Court must be 
affirmed. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204(k).  The record reflects that, at the time of his criminal 
solicitation convictions, Denston already was serving a total of thirty years incarceration 
at Level V on convictions of attempted murder and possession of a deadly weapon during 
the commission of a felony for attacking his former wife with a baseball bat.      
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4).   
3 Id.  In the absence of any evidence of a miscarriage of justice pursuant to Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61(i) (5), Denston’s claims also are barred pursuant to Rules 61(i) 
(1), (2) and (3). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
4
Gregory Denston, pro se 
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 
1181 Paddock Road 
Smyrna, DE 19977