Title: Morris v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 733, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALONZO W. MORRIS, JR.,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 733, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9911000751 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 14, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 30, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of April 2010, 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, Alonzo W. Morris, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s November 17, 2009 order denying his motion for 
“writ of error coram nobis.”  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is 
 
2 
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We 
agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In March 2000, a Superior Court jury found Morris guilty of 
Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  On direct appeal, this Court reversed the Superior 
Court’s judgment.2  Morris’ subsequent petition for a writ of prohibition was 
denied by this Court.3  At Morris’ retrial in November 2002, he again was 
found guilty of assault and the weapon violation.  This Court affirmed Morris’ 
convictions on direct appeal.4   
 
(3) 
Morris subsequently sought postconviction relief in the Superior 
Court.  The Superior Court’s denial of his postconviction motion was 
affirmed by this Court.5  After unsuccessfully petitioning for mandamus relief 
in this Court,6 Morris filed a petition for a “writ of error coram nobis” in the 
Superior Court, which requested a review of the evidence supporting probable 
cause for his arrest.  The instant appeal is from the Superior Court’s denial of 
his petition on the ground that the writ of coram nobis has been abolished in 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Morris v. State, 795 A.2d 653 (Del. 2002). 
3 In re Morris, Del. Supr., No. 513, 2002, Holland, J. (Nov. 4, 2002).  
4 Morris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 21, 2003, Steele, C. J. (Mar. 3, 2004).  
5 Morris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 215, 2005, Jacobs, J. (Apr. 13, 2006).  
6 In re Morris, Del. Supr., No. 525, 2009, Berger, J. (Sept. 30, 2009). 
 
3 
Delaware and, treating the petition as a postconviction motion, it is 
procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(1), (2), (3), and (4).       
 
(4) 
In his appeal, Morris claims that the Superior Court erred and 
abused its discretion when it denied his petition.  According to Morris, a) 
there is no remedy available to him other than a “writ of error coram nobis”; 
b) there was insufficient probable cause for his arrest; and c) his claims 
should be reviewed on their merits under the “fundamental fairness” 
exception of Rule 61(i)(5). 
 
(5) 
The writ of error coram nobis was an ancient common law writ 
of error that has been abolished in Delaware and replaced by modern rules of 
procedure for reopening a judgment.7  In Delaware, Rule 61 is the exclusive 
remedy for seeking to set aside a final judgment of conviction.8  Even viewed 
as a postconviction motion under Rule 61, Morris’ motion clearly is 
procedurally barred as untimely, repetitive, procedurally defaulted and 
formerly adjudicated.  Moreover, Morris has presented no evidence to support 
reconsideration of any of his claims under the “fundamental fairness” 
exception.  As such, we conclude that the Superior Court properly denied 
Morris’ motion. 
                                                 
7 Heron v. State, Del. Supr., No. 392, 2000, Veasey, C.J. (Jan. 17, 2001).  
8 Id. 
 
4 
 
(6) 
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, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice