Title: Rollins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DUANE ROLLINS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 212, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  ID. No. 1212010904 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 7, 2018  
   Decided: October 16, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.  
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior 
Court’s well-reasoned order, dated March 14, 2018, denying the appellant’s first 
motion for postconviction relief.1  As to the appellant’s contention that the Superior 
Court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment in his possession was unsigned, he 
did not make this argument below2 and, in any event, the indictment in the record 
was signed by the grand jury foreperson and a deputy attorney general.   
                                                 
1 State v. Rollins, 2018 WL 1363808 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2018). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for review; 
provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider and 
determine any question not so presented.”). 
 
2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice