Title: Hardin v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RUDOLPH V. HARDIN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 444, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN02-09-1706 thru 
§                                    1709 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 18, 2006 
 
    
 
 
Decided:    March 8, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of March 2006, the Court has considered the appellee’s 
motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a) and finds it manifest 
on the face of the appellant’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit 
for the reasons stated by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision 
dated September 12, 2005.  We find no error or abuse of discretion on the 
part of the Superior Court in any respect.  To the extent Hardin has failed to 
brief issues previously raised in the Superior Court, he has waived his right 
to pursue those issues in this appeal.1  To the extent Hardin raises issues in 
                                                 
1 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997). 
 
2
this appeal that were not previously raised in the Superior Court, we decline 
to consider those issues.2   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appellee’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 8.