Title: Marvel v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 569, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LARRY D.  MARVEL,
§
§
No.  569, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for Sussex County in Cr.
§
A.  No.  89-04-0155.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def. Id No.  89S00958DI
Submitted: March 5, 2002
Decided:
April 22, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 22nd day of April 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Larry D.  Marvel, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court’s denial of his fourth motion for postconviction relief.  The
appellee, State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior
Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Marvel’s opening brief
that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and AFFIRM.
1Marvel v.  State, 1991 WL 22358 (Del.  Supr.).
2Marvel v.  State, 1992 WL 219204 (Del.  Supr.).
3Marvel v.  State, 1994 WL 19022 (Del.  Supr.);  Marvel v.  State, 1994 WL
590534 (Del.  Supr.); Marvel v.  State, 1997 WL 168326 (Del.  Supr.).
4Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(1), (2).
5Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(5).
2
(2)
After a Superior Court jury trial in January 1990, Marvel was
convicted of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the Second Degree.  In 1991, this
Court affirmed Marvel’s conviction and sentence.1  Since then, the Court has
affirmed the denial of Marvel’s new trial motion2 and affirmed the denials of
three postconviction motions.3  By letter decision dated October 18, 2001, the
Superior Court denied Marvel’s fourth motion for postconviction relief.  This
appeal followed.
(3)
It is manifest to the Court that this matter should be affirmed on
the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Superior Court October 18
decision.  We agree with the Superior Court that Marvel’s motion is untimely
and repetitive and thus is procedurally barred.4  Moreover, Marvel has not
made the requisite showing of a newly recognized right, a viable jurisdictional
claim, or a colorable constitutional violation, to warrant application of an
exception to the procedural bar.5  Furthermore, as determined by the Superior
6Supr.  Ct.  R.  61(i)(4).
7Id.
3
Court, Marvel’s waiver of indictment and ineffective assistance of counsel
claims are procedurally barred as formerly adjudicated.6  Reconsideration of
the formerly adjudicated claims is not warranted in the interest of justice.7
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/Joseph T. Walsh
   Justice