Title: Pierce v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARNELL O. PIERCE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 271, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0503002489A 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 17, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 21, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of September 2015, after careful consideration of the opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we find it manifest 
that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s 
May 1, 2015 order.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Darnell 
Pierce’s first motion for postconviction relief, which was filed more than six years 
after this Court issued the mandate on his direct appeal,1 was untimely and subject 
to summary dismissal.  Contrary to Pierce’s assertion, merely alleging ineffective 
assistance of counsel is insufficient to excuse the time bar in every case.2  In this 
case, Pierce’s motion failed to assert any colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice 
                                                 
1 Pierce v. State, 2007 WL 3301027 (Del. Nov. 8, 2007). 
2 Foster v. State, 2012 WL 562825 (Del. Feb. 21, 2012). 
 
2 
under former Superior Court Rule 61(i)(5) sufficient to overcome the one-year 
procedural bar.  Under the circumstances, we also find no abuse of the Superior 
Court’s discretion in denying Pierce’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice