IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES A. BIGGINS, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 462, 2018 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 9609015504 (S) § § § Submitted: October 29, 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018

Before VALIHURA , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the a ppellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record on a ppeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, James A. Biggins, file d this appeal from the Superior

Court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is clear on the face of Biggins’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm. (2) In 1997, Biggins was convicted of multiple sex offenses. He subsequently filed many unsuccessful moti ons and petitions seek ing to overturn his2 conviction and sentence. 1 On March 27, 2018, Biggins filed a notice of appeal from a Superior Court order declining to rule on another motion for postconviction relief

that he had filed. On J une 29, 2018, this Court held that the matter “must be remanded to the Superior Court for prelim inary consideration of Biggins’ motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61(d) and for the issuance of an appropriate order.” 2 (3) On remand, the Superior Court deni ed Biggins’ motion. The Superior Court held that the motion was procedura lly barred and that Biggins’ attacks on the handling of the DNA evidence was immate rial because his defense at trial was consent, not misidentification. This a ppeal followed. On appeal, Biggins argues that the Superior Court erred in denying hi s motion because the State failed to secure

the DNA evidence collected. He also argues that the Supe rior Court erred in denying the motion for transcripts at State expense that he filed after the Superior Court denied his motion for postconviction relief. (4) We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment denying Biggins’ motion for postconviction relief on the basis of, and fo r the reasons stated in, the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated August 23, 2018. The Superior Court did not err in determining that Biggins’ motion was procedurally ba rred under Superior

1 See, e.g., Biggins v. State , 2011 WL 2731214, at *1 (Del. July 11, 2011) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Biggins’ seve nth motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, finding Biggins’ numerous filings constitu ted an abuse of process, and prohibiting Biggins from filing any further papers cha llenging his convictions in Cr. ID No. 9609015504 without approval of a justice). 2 Biggins v. State , 2018 WL 3213791, at *1 (Del. June 29, 2018).3 Court Criminal Rule 61, Biggins had no t overcome the procedural bars, and the handling of the DNA evidence was immaterial because Biggi ns’ defense at trial was consent, not misidentification. We also c onclude that the Superior Court did not err in denying Biggins’ motion for transcript s at State expense. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment of the Supe rior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice