Title: Ortiz v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLOS ORTIZ, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 301, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID S0208005710 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 13, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 31, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
The Court has carefully considered the appellant’s opening brief, the 
State’s motion to affirm,1 and the record on appeal.  We find it clear that the 
judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 
assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision dated May 18, 
2018. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s ninth 
motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the 
appellant had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles.  Contrary to the 
                                                 
1 The appellant’s request to respond to the motion to affirm is denied. 
 
2 
appellant’s argument, he had no retroactive constitutional right to counsel to 
represent him in pursuing his first motion for postconviction relief.2 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Bunting v. State, 2015 WL 2147188 (Del. May 5, 2015).