Title: Teagle v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 39, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELWOOD TEAGLE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 39, 2011 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0004014391, 0004013690, 
§  0004014388, 0004014392, 
§  0004014394, 0004014399, 
§  and 0004014402 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  March 23, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  April 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of April 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Elwood Teagle, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his 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 Teagle’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Teagle was convicted in 1981 of two 
counts of first degree rape, three counts of possession of a deadly weapon 
 
2
during the commission of a felony, two counts of first degree kidnapping, one 
count of first degree assault, one count of attempted first degree rape, and two 
counts of second degree burglary.  Since that time, he has filed numerous 
unsuccessful state and federal petitions seeking to attack his convictions 
collaterally.1  The Superior Court denied his latest motion for postconviction 
relief on January 14, 2011. 
 
(3) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ positions on appeal, we 
find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the 
Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated January 14, 2011. The Superior 
Court did not err in concluding that appellant’s eighth motion for 
postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that appellant had failed to 
overcome the procedural hurdles. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1 See, e.g., Teagle v. State, 2000 WL 949646 (Apr. 14, 2000) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of Teagle’s 
motion for postconviction relief).