Title: Foster v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 155, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JONATHAN (JOHN) E. FOSTER,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 155, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0703031898 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 2, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  June 1, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of June 2012, 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, Jonathan (John) E. Foster, filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s February 28, 2012 order denying his third 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the 
 
2
Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in September 2007, Foster 
was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Burglary in the Second Degree, 
Robbery in the Second Degree and Burglary in the Third Degree.  He was 
sentenced as a habitual offender to 10 years of Level V incarceration on the 
second degree burglary conviction, to 8 years at Level V on the second 
degree robbery conviction and to 18 months at Level V, to be suspended for 
18 months at Level III probation, on the third degree burglary conviction.2  
Foster’s convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.3  The 
denial of Foster’s first postconviction motion was affirmed by this Court.4 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Foster claims that his trial was fundamentally 
flawed because the State could not locate his police booking photograph 
prior to trial. 
 
(4) 
Because Foster’s claim was raised, unsuccessfully, in both his 
first and second postconviction motions, he is procedurally barred from 
raising it in these proceedings.5  In the absence of any basis for addressing 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Foster’s sentence for second degree robbery was later reduced to 7 years at Level V. 
3 Foster v. State, 961 A.2d 526 (Del. 2008). 
4 Foster v. State, Del. Supr., No. 87, 2010, Holland, J. (Aug. 2, 2010).  Foster did not file 
an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second postconviction motion. 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
 
3
the claim once again in the interest of justice,6 we conclude that the Superior 
Court properly denied it.   
 
(5) 
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 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 
 
                                                 
6 Id.