Title: Carrigan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 19, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 19, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDON M. CARRIGAN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 19, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1109008434 & 
§  1503000827 (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  May 13, 2019 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     July 19, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 
motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s 
order, dated December 13, 2018, adopting the Commissioner’s report and 
recommendation, dated August 21, 2018, and summarily dismissing the second 
motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed.1  Carrigan was not convicted 
after trial, he did not satisfy the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61(d)(2),2 and his claims were meritless.  The Superior Court did not err in denying 
                                                 
1 State v. Carrigan, 2018 WL 6601174 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2018). 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall 
be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with 
particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant was actually innocent or a 
new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review). 
2 
 
Carrigan’s motion for appointment of counsel and in summarily dismissing the 
postconviction motion.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice