Title: Guinn v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE GUINN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 228, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0411013992 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 10, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 21, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 21st day of September 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Tyrone Guinn, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s April 17, 2007 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In May 2005, Guinn was found guilty by a Superior Court jury 
of Assault in a Detention Facility.  He was sentenced to 8 years of Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after 3 years for 4 years of decreasing 
 
2
supervision.  This Court affirmed Guinn’s conviction and sentence on direct 
appeal.1     
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Guinn claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it failed to schedule a hearing on his claim that his counsel 
rendered ineffective assistance.  The record reflects that this was Guinn’s 
seventh postconviction motion and that at least the last three of his 
postconviction motions unsuccessfully raised claims of ineffective assistance 
of counsel.   
 
(4) 
Any claim that was raised and decided in Guinn’s previous 
postconviction motions is barred “unless reconsideration of the claim is 
warranted in the interest of justice.”2  In the absence of any evidence 
supporting reconsideration of the claim, the Superior Court correctly denied 
Guinn’s postconviction motion.  Moreover, since the claim was procedurally 
barred, there was no basis upon which to schedule an evidentiary hearing.3  
                                                 
1 Guinn v. State, Del. Supr., No. 313, 2005, Steele, C.J. (Feb. 28, 2006). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (h) (It is within the discretion of the Superior Court to 
determine whether a hearing on a postconviction motion is desirable.) 
 
3
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice