Title: Thomas v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 384, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 22, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
MARLON THOMAS,                       
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 384, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Sussex County  
   Cr. ID No. 9505002948 
                      
 
Submitted: February 18, 2005  
   Decided: March 22, 2005    
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of March 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Marlon Thomas, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s August 9, 2004 order denying his motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
In August 1995, Thomas was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 
Assault in the First Degree, two counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the 
Second Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, and Unauthorized Use of a 
 
 
-2-
Motor Vehicle.  In addition to his direct appeal, Thomas filed two previous 
motions for postconviction relief.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Thomas claims that: a) because he showed that 
evidence of prior bad acts was improperly admitted at his trial,1 the untimeliness of 
his postconviction motion2 should have been excused based on a “colorable claim 
that there was miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that 
undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the 
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.”3    
 
(4) 
Thomas’ argument regarding prior bad acts evidence is not a claim of 
constitutional dimension.  As such, there was no basis for the Superior Court to 
consider whether his untimely postconviction motion should be excused pursuant 
to Rule 61(i) (5). 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Del. Evid. R. 404(b). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).