IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ADRIANNE R. YOUNG §

§ No. 50, 2018

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 9904019648 (N)

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: March 26 , 2018

Decided: May 23 , 201 8

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN , Justices.

ORDE R

(1) In March 2001, the appellant, Adrianne R. Young, pleaded guilty but

mentally ill to Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the

Commission of a Felony. On June 25, 2001, t he Superior Court sentenced Young

to life in prison without parole for the murder conviction

, and to ten years of

incarceration for the weapon offense.

( 2 ) This appeal is from the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Young’s

seventh motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61

.

The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superio r Court’s judgment

. Having

reviewed the record and determined, as did the Superior Court, that Young’s2

postconviction motion was subject to summary dismissal under Rule 61(d)(2), we

will grant the motion to affirm.

( 3 ) In our review of the record we noted that Young has raised

— and

repeated

—

the same claims

, or combination of claims

, challenging the effectiveness

of her defense counsel , the validity of her guilty plea , the mandatory life sentence

imposed upon her, and even her true age and identity at the time of the murder.

Young raised these claims in whole or in part not only in her successive motions for

postconviction relief, but in a series of motions seeking a modification of sentence

under Superior Court Criminal R ule 35, in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and

in other letters and documents that were considered by the Superior Court and

denied

.

(4) In 201 4 , the Superior Court appointed counsel to represent Young in

connection with her fourth pro se motion for postconviction relief filed in 2013

.

Also, d uring the course of th ose proceedings, the Superior Court asked

postconviction counsel to investigate Young’s 2014 factual assertions disputing her

identity and age at the time of the murder. Postconvictio n counsel retained a private

investigator to look into Young’s factual assertions.

(5) After thoroughly reviewing the record, postconviction counsel filed a

motion to withdraw based upon a lack of meritorious grounds in the record. In an

eighteen

- page or der dated November 12, 2014, the Superior Court granted the3

motion to withdraw and , after a de novo review of the record, denied Young’s fourth

pro se motion for postconviction relief. In a n order dated March 6, 2015, after

considering the private investigator’s twenty

- page report, which the Superior Court

found was a “full thorough and independent professional investigation” of Young’s

factual assertions as to her true age and identity at the time of the murder, th e co urt

concluded that Young’s assertions were unfounded.

( 6 ) In short, the record fairly reflects that when denying the myriad of

motions, petition, letters, and documents submitted by Young over the years

, the

Superior Court issued its decisions after care ful ly considering Young’s claims and

determining that the claims were without merit , procedurally barred, or both. And,

i n the two instances w hen Young filed a timely appeal from th ose decisions, we

affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. 1

( 7 ) Going fo rward, we will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources

reviewing Young’s repetitive and frivolous claims

. In the future, a ny request by

Young to proceed in forma pauperis in any matter before us concerning h er 200 1

conviction s and sentence must be accompanied by an affidavit containing the

certifications required by title 10, § 8803(e). 2

1 See Young v. State , 2004 WL 11 9 5444 (Del. May 24, 2004) (affirming denial of first

postconviction motion); Young v. State , 2015 WL 5032018 (Del. Aug. 25, 2015) (affirming denial

of fourth postconviction motion).

2 Under 10 Del. C. § 8 803(e), a litigant must certify by affidavit that (1) the claims sought to be

litigated never have been raised or disposed of before in any court; (2) the facts alleged are true

and correct; (3) the affi ant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED. Any future application by Young to proceed in forma pauperis in a

matter before this Court concerning h er 200 1 conviction s and sentence must be

accompanied by an affidavit containing the certifications required by title 10, §

8803(e). 3

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

case law controls the legal issues raised; (4) the affiant has no reason to believe the claims are

foreclosed by controlled law; and (5) the affiant understands that the certification s are made under

penalty of perjury.

3 Id.