IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

CARLOS ORTIZ, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ No. 458, 2019 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0208005710 (S) 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: December 23, 2019 

Decided: February 21, 2020 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 

to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court did not 

abuse its discretion when it summarily dismissed the appellant’s eleventh motion for 

postconviction relief. The appellant has not pleaded with particularity the existence 

of new evidence of actual innocence or that a new, retroactive rule of constitutional 

law renders his conviction invalid.1

 Moreover, the appellant’s claim that the 

 

1

 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 
2 

Superior Court lacked jurisdiction2 because of deficiencies in the indictment fails on 

the merits.3

We previously warned the appellant that if he continued to file appeals from 

the denial of untimely and repetitive motions for postconviction relief, he risked 

being enjoined from filing such appeals in this Court without first seeking leave of 

the Court.4

 We now conclude that Ortiz’s untimely, repetitive, and frivolous filings 

constitute an abuse of the judicial process. Thus, the Clerk of this Court is directed 

to refuse any future filings from Ortiz related to these criminal convictions and 

sentences unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the 

 

2

 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 

3 See, e.g., Fountain v. State, 288 A.2d 277, 278-79 (Del. 1972) (holding that the failure to 

allege an essential element of a criminal offense in the information did not constitute a 

jurisdictional defect). 

4 Ortiz v. State, 2015 WL 6783158 (Del. Nov. 5, 2015); Ortiz v. State, 2019 WL 417881 

(Del. Feb. 1, 2019). 
3 

certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e)5 and that motion is first granted by 

the Court. 

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

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice 

 

5

 Section 8803(e) of Title 10 of the Delaware Code provides: 

When a court finds that a litigant has abused the judicial process by filing frivolous 

or malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future claims 

without leave of court. When so enjoined, any future requests to file claims must 

be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that: 

(1) The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of 

before in any court; 

(2) The facts alleged are true and correct; 

(3) The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what 

relevant case law controls the legal issues raised; 

(4) The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlling 

law; and 

(5) The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.