Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 423, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERIOUS J. JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 423, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0304007340 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  October 2, 2014  
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     October 27, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of October 2014, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, we find it 
manifest that the Superior Court’s July 23, 2014 order, which denied Derious 
Johnson’s third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61 (“Rule 61”), should be affirmed.  The motion was untimely, repetitive, 
procedurally defaulted, and formerly adjudicated under Rule 61(i)(1)-(4) and 
Johnson failed to demonstrate any cause for relief from the procedural default,1 
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3) (barring claim not asserted in proceedings leading to conviction 
unless movant shows cause for relief from procedural default and prejudice). 
2 
 
that consideration of his claims was warranted in the interest of justice,2 or a 
colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice.3     
We also note that this is Johnson’s third postconviction motion.  In the 
future, if Johnson files additional petitions, we do not intend to invest scare judicial 
resources addressing repetitive claims.  We encourage Johnson to be mindful of 
Rule 61(j).4    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgments of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2), (i)(4) (barring untimely and formerly adjudicated claims unless 
consideration is warranted in interest of justice). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) (providing that procedural bars of Rule 61(i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) 
are not applicable to colorable claim of miscarriage of justice because of constitutional 
violation). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the 
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).