Title: Grosvenor v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 373, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMAH K. GROSVENOR, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 373, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0008020754 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 1, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of December 2006, 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, Jamah K. Grosvenor, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 30, 2006 order denying his second motion 
for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Grosvenor’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
AFFIRM.   
 
2
 
(2) 
In December 2000, Grosvenor pled guilty to Burglary in the 
Third Degree and Assault in the Third Degree.  On the burglary conviction, 
he was sentenced to 3 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 18 
months at Level II probation.  On the assault conviction, he was sentenced to 
1 year incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 12 months of Level II 
probation.  Grosvenor did not appeal his convictions or sentences.   
 
(3) 
In August 2002, Grosvenor was found to have violated his 
probation.  His probation was revoked and he was sentenced to Level V 
incarceration.  Grosvenor filed a motion for reduction of his sentence, which 
the Superior Court denied.  Grosvenor next filed a motion for postconviction 
relief, which the Superior Court also denied.  This Court affirmed the 
judgment of the Superior Court.1   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Grosvenor claims: a) the Superior Court lacked 
jurisdiction to sentence him because the burglary charge in his indictment 
was invalid; and b) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to 
object to the invalid burglary charge. 
 
(5) 
Grosvenor’s first claim is that his indictment was defective.  
That claim is time-barred because Grosvenor’s second postconviction 
motion was filed in December 2005, more than 3 years after his judgment of 
                                                 
1 Grosvenor v. State, 849 A.2d 33 (Del. 2004). 
 
3
conviction became final in January 2001.2  Moreover, Grosvenor has failed 
to overcome the time bar by demonstrating either that the Superior Court 
lacked jurisdiction or that there is a colorable claim of a miscarriage of 
justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental 
legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the 
judgment of conviction.3 
 
(6) 
Grosvenor’s second claim is that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to object to the invalid burglary charge.  
Because that claim previously was raised and rejected in Grosvenor’s first 
postconviction motion, he is procedurally barred from asserting it again in 
this proceeding.4  Moreover, Grosvenor has failed to assert any basis for 
reconsideration of the claim in the interest of justice.5 
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of Grosvenor’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, there was no abuse of discretion. 
                                                 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554-55 (Del. 1990); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
5 Id. 
 
4
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice