IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

ROBERT SAUNDERS, § 

 § No. 133, 2014 

 Defendant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware in and 

 v. § for New Castle County 

 § 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff Below, § Cr. ID No. 89008879DI 

 Appellee. § 

Submitted: August 11, 2014 

Decided: October 27, 2014 

Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 

 

O R D E R 

 

This 27th day of October 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 

brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) Nearly thirty-eight years ago, in November 1976, a Superior Court 

jury convicted the appellant, Robert Saunders, of Murder in the First Degree and 

related offenses. Saunders’ convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1979.1

 

(2) In this appeal, Saunders seeks review of the Superior Court’s denial of 

his ninth motion for postconviction relief and related motions for appointment of 

counsel, to disqualify the judge deciding the postconviction motion, and “for 

 

1

Saunders v. State, 401 A.2d 629 (Del. 1979). 
2 

discovery and inspection” of all of his postconviction motions since 1981 and the 

decisions on those motions. The appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm 

the judgment of the Superior Court. 

(3) The Court has reviewed the parties’ positions on appeal and the 

Superior Court record and has concluded that there is no error of law or abuse of 

discretion in the Superior Court’s denials of Saunders’ ninth postconviction motion 

and related motions for appointment of counsel, to disqualify the assigned judge, 

and for “discovery and inspection.” Moreover, because it appears that Saunders’ 

ninth postconviction motion and related motions raised the same right to counsel 

claims that were raised and rejected in his eighth postconviction motion the denial 

of which was affirmed on appeal,2

 we have found that this appeal is legally 

frivolous and is an abuse of the judicial process.3

(4) We do not intend to continue to invest scarce judicial resources in 

addressing repetitive and frivolous claims. In the future, if Saunders files a notice 

of appeal or a petition for an extraordinary writ concerning his 1976 convictions, 

the Clerk is directed to refuse the filing unless it is accompanied by the required 

 

2

See Saunders v. State, 2013 WL 1559231 (Del. April 11, 2013) (affirming denial of eighth 

motion for postconviction relief after concluding that appellant “offered no factual support for 

his claim that his trial counsel failed to tender a plea offer to him in the 1970’s [or] any legal 

support for his claims that the Superior Court erred by failing to appoint him counsel and failing 

to require affidavits from counsel who represented him decades ago”) (citations omitted). 

3

See 10 Del. C. § 8801(5) (“Legally frivolous” shall mean a claim based on an indisputably 

meritless legal theory.”). 
3 

filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn 

affidavit containing the certifications under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), and that motion 

is first granted by the Court.4

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

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Randy J. Holland 

 Justice 

 

4

 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) 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 controlled law; and 

(5) The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under 

penalty of perjury.