IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CLIFFORD WRIGHT,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § No. 570, 2016 § § § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 0801010328 § § Submitted: March 10, 2017 Decided: May 12, 2017

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

ORDER

This 12 th day of May 2017, upon c onsideration of the par ties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it app ears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Clifford Wright, file d this appeal from the Superior Court’s order, dated November 2, 2016, denying his second motion for postconviction relief. We find no merit to Wright’s appeal. Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. (2) A Superior Court jury convicted Wright in 2010 of four counts of first degree murder and multiple related offe nses. The Superior Court sentenced Wright to life imprisonment. 1 After remanding the matter to the Superior Court to rule on his motion for new trial, this C ourt affirmed Wright’s convictions and

1 State v. Wright , 2010 WL 746240 (Del. Super. Mar. 5, 2010).2 sentences on direct appeal. 2 Thereafter, Wright sought to pursue postconviction relief under Superior Court Cr iminal Rule 61. On Augus t 23, 2012, Wright filed a motion requesting the appointment of couns el. The Superior Court granted that motion on October 3, 2012 and appointed counsel on Octobe r 17, 2012. On October 18, 2012, Wright filed a pro se motion under Rule 61, raising five issues. 3

Postconviction counsel filed an amende d and superseding motion on Wright’s behalf on August 1, 2015. Th e amended motion raised one claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigat e and present evidence to rebut the testimony of two witnesses re garding the murder weapon. (3) After receiving the State’s respons e, the Superior Court denied Wright’s motion for postconviction relief. 4 Both the State’s response and the Superior Court’s order addres sed the sole issue raised in the amended motion filed by Wright’s counsel. 5 On appeal, this Court affirm ed the denial of postconviction

relief. 6

2 Wright v. State , 2011 WL 5052185 (Del. Oct. 24, 2011).

3 Wright’s pro se motion asserted that: (i) he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (ii) the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the murd er weapon as charged in the indictment; (iii) the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove th at Wright committed burglar y; (iv) he was denied the right to confront witnesses after the prosecutor improperly buttr essed the testimony of a State witness in rebuttal; and (v) his trial counsel wa s ineffective for attempting to obtain certain telephone records and for introducing a ba t as a potential murder weapon.

4 State v. Wright , 2015 WL 648818 (Del. Super. Feb. 12, 2015).

5 This was entirely proper because as long as a defendant is represented by counsel, as Wright was in this case, any pro se motion is a legal nullity unless a nd until it is endorsed by counsel. Chavous v. State , 953 A.2d 282, 286 (Del. 2008).

6 Wright v. State , 2016 WL 286828 (Del. Jan. 22, 2016).3 (4) Wright filed his second motion for postconviction relief on July 15, 2016. Wright raised the same five cl aims that he sought to argue in the pro se motion for postconviction re lief he filed in the first Rule 61 proceedings. Additionally, Wright alleged that hi s appointed postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise his five pro se claims in the first Rule 61 proceedings. (5) The Superior Court denied Wright ’s second motion for postconviction relief, finding that all of Wright’s claims were procedurally barred. 7 Specifically, the Superior Court found that Wright’s speedy trial claim was barred by Rule 61(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3). Additionally, the Superior Court concluded there was no merit to the claim. The Superior Cour t found that Wright’s sufficiency of the evidence claim regarding the murder weapon was barred by Rule 61(i)(1) and (i)(3) and also was barred by (i)(4) because the claim had been raised and rejected in Wright’s motion for new trial and on di rect appeal. The S uperior Court found that Wright’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove he burglarized the female victim’s house was barred by Rule 61(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(4) and also

lacked merit because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to

7 The Superior Court corre ctly applied the version of Rule 61 that was in effect when Wright filed his second postconviction motion in 2016. See Turnage v. State , 2015 WL 6746644 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015). Rule 61(i) bars the Superior Co urt’s consideration of any postconviction claim that: (1) was not filed within one year after th e judgment of conviction became final; (2) was not raised in a first postconviction motion; (3) was not raised in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction unless th e defendant can establish cause and prejudice; and (4) was formerly adjudicated. Under Rule 61(i)(5), these bars do not apply to a claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or to any claim where the movant pleads with particularity that new evidence exists of his innocence in fact or that a new, retroact ive rule of constitutional law applies to his case and renders his convictions invalid.4 find Wright guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. The Superior Court found that Wright’s claims of prosecuto r misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel were barred by Ru le 61(i)(1), (i)(2) and (i)( 4). Finally, the Superior Court found that Wright’s claim of inef fective assistance of postconviction counsel was procedurally barred and l acked merit for all of the r easons the court stated in its analysis of the underlying issues. (6) After careful consideration of the pa rties’ briefs on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior

Court’s well-reasoned decision dated Nove mber 2, 2016. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appella nt’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the mo tion failed to overcome the procedural

hurdles. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice