Title: Pumphrey v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 580, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 23, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELTON L. PUMPHREY, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 580, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0002014519 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 10, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 23, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of October 2007, after careful consideration of the 
parties’ briefs and record 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 October 17, 2006. The Superior Court did not err in 
concluding that appellant lacked standing to pursue a motion for 
postconviction relief because appellant had completed his sentence and thus 
was no longer “in custody or subject to future custody” under the sentence 
 
2
for which postconviction relief was sought.1 Moreover, given his lengthy 
criminal record, Pumphrey could not establish that he would suffer any 
collateral consequences as a result of the convictions he sought to challenge 
in his motion.2  Accordingly, his motion for postconviction relief was moot. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1), which provides that a motion for 
postconviction relief may only be brought by “a person in custody or subject to future 
custody under a sentence” of the Superior Court. 
2 Gural v. State, 251 A.2d 344, 344-45 (Del. 1969).