Title: Oldham v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 662, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 18, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT B. OLDHAM, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 662, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 92001855DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 25, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 18, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of July 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Robert B. Oldham, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s November 21, 2006 order denying his third 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In March 1992, Oldham pleaded guilty to Attempted Murder in 
the First Degree, Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, Robbery 
in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, 
two counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the First Degree, and Indecent 
 
2
Exposure.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 30 years.  Oldham’s 
convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Oldham claims that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion by denying his motion for postconviction relief as procedurally 
barred. 
 
(4) 
In his motion for postconviction relief filed in the Superior 
Court, Oldham argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by 
failing to: conduct an investigation into the factual circumstances of the 
charges against him; move to suppress his statement to police; and disclose 
information to him that was pertinent to the plea bargain offered by the 
State.  Oldham also argued that the Superior Court improperly ignored his 
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and failed to take into consideration the 
conflict of interest that existed between him and his counsel prior to 
imposing sentence.   
 
(5) 
 The record reflects that Oldham’s claims are time-barred.2  
Moreover, Oldham has failed to demonstrate that his claims should be 
considered because of a constitutional violation that undermined the 
fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings 
                                                 
1 Oldham v. State, Del. Supr., No. 232, 1992, Veasey, C.J. (Dec. 17, 1992). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
 
3
leading to the judgment of conviction.3  Even if his claims were not time-
barred, the record reflects that Oldham raised the issue of ineffective 
assistance of counsel in his previous motions for postconviction relief.  As 
such, his ineffectiveness claims in this proceeding are barred as previously 
adjudicated.4  
 
(6) 
To the extent Oldham argues that his claims of impropriety on 
the part of the Superior Court are new claims that should be considered at 
this time, that argument, too, is unavailing.  Oldham had the opportunity to 
raise those claims in his previous motions, but failed to do so.5  Moreover, 
we do not find that consideration of the claims at this time is warranted in 
the interest of justice.6  We, therefore, conclude that the Superior Court 
properly denied Oldham’s postconviction motion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
       
 
 
                                                 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2). 
6 Id.