Title: Tatem v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 WILLIAM TATEM, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§     No. 597, 2018 
§ 
§     Court Below—Superior Court 
§     of the State of Delaware 
§   
§     Cr. ID No. 840006375DI (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  January 28, 2019  
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     March 5, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 
motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below 
should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s November 8, 2018 order.  
The Superior Court did not err in summarily dismissing the appellant’s ninth motion 
for postconviction relief.  The motion was procedurally barred and did not satisfy 
the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).  We warn the 
appellant that if he continues to file appeals from untimely and repetitive claims in 
2 
 
the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing future appeals without leave of 
the Court.  We also warn the appellant to be mindful of Rule 61(j).1   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the 
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).