Title: Samuel v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HARRY L. SAMUEL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§    No. 344, 2021 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID No. 93005924DI (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  June 23, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  August 19, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court order’s 
summarily dismissing the appellant’s fifth motion for postconviction relief should 
be affirmed.  The motion was untimely1 and successive.2  The appellant has not 
pleaded with particularity new evidence of actual innocence or that a new, 
retroactive rule of constitutional law renders his convictions invalid.3  The 
appellant’s argument that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction under Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(5) because two counts in the indictment charged him with 
 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).  In 2005, Rule 61(i)(1) was amended to reduce the 
postconviction limitation period for convictions obtained after July 1, 2005 from three years to one 
year.  The appellant’s convictions were obtained before July 1, 2005.   
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2).  
3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 
2 
 
assault in a detention center that was incorrectly identified as Delaware Correctional 
Center instead of Plummer Center is without merit.4   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
4 See 11 Del. C. § 2701(c) (“The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction, original and concurrent, 
over all crimes, except where jurisdiction is exclusively vested in another court.”).  See also In re 
Gordon, 2020 WL 5883444, at *1 (Del. Oct. 2, 2020) (holding defendant had not shown that the 
absence of the victim’s age in rape counts of indictment deprived the Superior Court of 
jurisdiction); Miller v. State, 2020 WL 582715, at *1 (Del. Feb. 5, 2020) (rejecting claim that the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction as a result of deficiencies in the indictment) (citing Fountain v. 
State, 288 A.2d 277, 278-79 (Del. 1972)).