Title: Shah f/k/a Lindsey v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KUSHAL SHAH, f/k/a,  
 
§ 
 
GERRON LINDSEY, 
 
§ 
No. 490, 2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of the  
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware   
 
 
 
 
 
  
§ 
  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0002019767 (N) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 20, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 7, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
(1) 
The Court has considered the opening brief filed by the appellant, 
Kushal Shah, and the appellee’s motion to affirm in this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order of October 31, 2017, denying Shah’s eleventh motion for 
postconviction relief.1  On appeal, Shah argues, as he did in his underlying motion, 
that his mandatory life sentence, imposed in 2002 for his first degree murder 
conviction, was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in 
Miller v. Alabama.2  The Superior Court did not err when ruling that the Miller 
                                          
 
1 State v. Shah, 2017 WL 5075368 (Del. Super. Oct. 31, 2017). 
2 567 U.S. 460 (2012). 
2 
 
holding, although retroactively applicable in appropriate cases, did not apply in 
Shah’s case because Shah was eighteen years old when he committed the offense.   
 
(2) 
When denying Shah’s tenth motion for postconviction relief, the 
Superior Court adopted a Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation finding that 
Shah had abused the judicial system by filing repetitive and meritless motions for 
postconviction relief.3  Based on that finding, the Superior Court enjoined Shah from 
filing further motions for postconviction relief unless the motion is approved by the 
court.4  On appeal from the denial of Shah’s tenth motion for postconviction relief, 
we affirmed the Superior Court’s decision and advised Shah that we would not 
continue to invest scarce judicial resources to review repetitive claims.5   
 
(3) 
With the affirmance of the Superior Court’s denial of Shah’s motion 
arguing the retroactive effect of Miller v. Alabama, we advise Shah that we will not 
review that claim again.  We also order that any future requests by Shah to proceed 
in forma pauperis in any matter before us concerning his 2002 conviction and 
sentence must be accompanied by an affidavit containing the certifications required 
by title 10, § 8803(e).            
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  Any future 
                                          
 
3 State v. Shah, 2015 WL 5675838 (Del. Super. Sept. 10, 2015). 
4 Id. 
5 Shah v. State, 2015 WL 9436813 (Del. Dec. 22, 2015). 
3 
 
application by Shah to proceed in forma pauperis in a matter before this Court 
concerning his 2002 conviction and sentence must be accompanied by an affidavit 
containing the certifications required by title 10, § 8803(e).   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice