Title: Desmond v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 151, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 91009844DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 22, 2012 
Decided:  August 9, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of August 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Christopher R. Desmond, filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his eighth motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in November 1992, Desmond 
was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 10 counts of Robbery in the 
First Degree, 2 counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, 10 counts of 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 3 
 
2
counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited, 3 counts 
of Theft and 1 count of Escape in the Third Degree.  He was sentenced to a 
total of 78 years and 1 month of Level V incarceration.  Desmond’s 
convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1  Desmond has 
filed numerous unsuccessful postconviction petitions and motions in the 
Superior Court and the Federal District Court since that time.  Every appeal 
filed in this Court also has been unsuccessful. 
 
(3) 
In his postconviction motion in the Superior Court, Desmond 
claimed that Rule 61(i) (4)’s “interest of justice” exception applies to his 
case because there is evidence that a police informant who resembled him 
was the actual perpetrator of the crimes of which he was convicted.  In his 
appeal, Desmond claims that he has suffered a “miscarriage of justice” and, 
therefore, is entitled to relief under Rule 61(i) (5). 
 
(4) 
Under Delaware law, the Superior Court is required to 
determine whether the procedural requirements of Rule 61 have been met 
prior to addressing the substantive merits of claims made in a postconviction 
motion.2  While Desmond’s current motion is untimely3 and procedurally 
                                                 
1 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994). 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
 
3
barred,4 it nevertheless may be considered if he demonstrates the existence 
of a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice due to a constitutional 
violation that undermined the legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the 
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.5 
 
(5) 
Desmond has failed to demonstrate a colorable claim of a 
miscarriage of justice.  The record advanced by Desmond in support of his 
claim, consisting of several pages of trial transcript, simply does not support 
his claim of a miscarriage of justice due to a misidentification of the 
perpetrator of the crimes.  Over the course of many years since his 
conviction, eight motions for postconviction relief and numerous other 
filings, Desmond has failed to demonstrate that his trial was tainted in any 
respect.  We, therefore, conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court 
must be affirmed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2) and (3). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).