Title: Saunders v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 18, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT SAUNDERS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 18, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 89008879DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: March 15, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 11, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 11th day of April 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Robert Saunders, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s December 26, 2012 order adopting the Commissioner’s August 6, 
2012 report, which recommended that Saunders’ eighth motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 be denied.1  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in 1976, Saunders was found guilty 
by a Superior Court jury of Murder in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the First and 
Second Degrees, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a 
Felony, Burglary in the Third Degree and Theft.  He was sentenced to life in 
prison.  Saunders’ convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.3   
 
(3) 
Since that time, Saunders has filed numerous postconviction motions 
pursuant to Rule 61.  None of Saunders’ motions has been successful, including his 
second motion for which, according to the record before us, he was afforded court-
appointed counsel.  In 2012, Saunders filed his eighth postconviction motion, 
accompanied by a motion for the appointment of counsel, which was denied by the 
Superior Court.  This appeal ensued. 
 
(4) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his eighth 
postconviction motion, Saunders claims that a) the Superior Court erred by 
denying his motion for the appointment of counsel because he suffers from a 
number of physical ailments; b) the Superior Court erred by not requesting that his 
trial and postconviction counsel file affidavits in response to his ineffectiveness 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Saunders v. State, 401 A.2d 629 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
claims; and c) his trial counsel never conveyed a plea offer to him that would have 
resulted in a 50-year, rather than a life, term of incarceration. 
 
(5) 
When considering a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 
61, the Superior Court must apply the procedural requirements of the rule before 
reaching the merits of the claims.4  In this case, Saunders’ postconviction motion 
was not only time-barred,5 but also procedurally barred because he asserted claims 
that could have been, but were not, asserted in prior postconviction proceedings.6   
 
(6) 
Moreover, Saunders failed to demonstrate that the bars were 
inapplicable due to a miscarriage of justice.7  Specifically, he offered no factual 
support for his claim that his trial counsel failed to tender a plea offer to him in the 
1970’s, nor has he offered any such support in his brief to this Court.  Neither has 
he offered any legal support for his claims that the Superior Court erred by failing 
to appoint him counsel8 and failing to require affidavits from counsel who 
represented him decades ago.9  
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
                                                 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2). 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
8 The Superior Court has discretion to appoint counsel in a postconviction proceeding only for 
“good cause shown.”  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e) (1). 
9 The Superior Court has discretion to require counsel to submit affidavits in a postconviction 
proceeding when it deems such material to be relevant.  Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g) (1) and (2). 
 
4
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there was no 
abuse of discretion. 
 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice