Title: Alomari v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 456, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NAGI ALOMARI, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 456, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 88006120DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 13, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 28, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of December 2011, upon consideration of the opening brief, 
the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Nagi Alomari, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Alomari’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury found Alomari guilty of 
two counts of attempted murder and related charges.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Alomari to two life terms of imprisonment plus three years.  This Court 
 
2
affirmed Alomari’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.1  In May 1991, 
Alomari filed his first motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court 
denied.  Alomari did not appeal.  In October 2010, Alomari filed his second motion 
for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court again denied.  This appeal 
followed.  
 
(3) 
When reviewing the Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief, 
this Court must consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61(i) before we may 
consider the merits of any postconviction claim.2  In this case, Alomari’s claims 
were both untimely under Rule 61(i)(1) and repetitive under Rule 61(i)(2).   
Alomari failed to overcome these procedural hurdles.  Accordingly, the judgment 
below shall be affirmed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Alomari v. State, 1991 WL 22374 (Del. Feb. 14, 1991). 
2 Stone v. State, 690 A.2d 924, 925 (Del. 1996).