Title: Desmond v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 383, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 383, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID N91009844DI 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 13, 2018 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the notice to show and the appellant Christopher 
Desmond’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In November 1992, a Superior Court jury convicted Desmond of 
ten counts of Robbery in the First Degree as well as other related offenses. 
This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment on direct appeal.1 Since 
that time, Desmond has filed a number of unsuccessful motions and petitions 
challenging his 1992 convictions in this Court, the Superior Court, and the 
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  In February 2015, 
                                                 
1 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994). 
 
2
the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filings from Desmond 
unless the filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed 
motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the 
certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion was granted 
by the Court.2  
(2) 
On July 25, 2018, Desmond filed a notice of appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order dated July 10, 2018, summarily dismissing his 
eleventh motion for postconviction relief.  He also filed a motion to proceed 
in forma pauperis, certifying that he had made a diligent and good faith effort 
to determine what relevant case law controls the legal issues on appeal and 
that he had no reason to believe that his claims are foreclosed by controlling 
law.  The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Desmond why his 
appeal should not be dismissed for Desmond’s certification that he had no 
reason to believe that his claims are foreclosed by controlling law. 
(3) 
Desmond’s response to the rule to show cause does not address 
his certification that he has no reason to believe that his appeal from the 
Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his untimely and repetitive eleventh 
motion for postconviction relief is controlled by settled law.  Instead, 
Desmond responded to the notice to show cause by filing a “Motion to Recuse 
                                                 
2 Desmond v. Biden, 2015 WL 631582 (Del. Feb. 11, 2015). 
 
3
the Bench.”  There is no basis for Desmond’s recusal motion.  Moreover, it is 
clear that Desmond’s eleventh motion for postconviction relief was foreclosed 
by settled Delaware law.  His appeal, therefore, is subject to dismissal.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice