Title: Morris v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 47, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALONZO MORRIS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 47, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9911000751 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: March 18, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of April 2011, 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 Morris, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 18, 2011 order denying his second motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The plaintiff-
appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
 
2
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In March 2000, Morris was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of 
Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony.  On direct appeal2 the Superior Court’s judgment was 
reversed and Morris’s convictions were vacated by this Court.  After a second trial 
in November 2002, Morris was again convicted of the assault and weapon charges.  
On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Morris’s convictions.3  In March 2005, 
Morris filed his first postconviction motion under Rule 61.  The Superior Court’s 
denial of the motion was affirmed by this Court.4   
 
(3) 
On this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
postconviction motion, Morris claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion 
by denying the motion because Morris had a conflict with his counsel that 
constituted a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice under Rule 61(i)(5). 
 
(4) 
Morris’s claim is clearly time-barred5 and he has presented no 
evidence of a miscarriage of justice occasioned by a violation of his constitutional 
rights.6  Moreover, in this Court’s 2006 decision affirming the Superior Court’s 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Morris v. State, 795 A.2d 653 (Del. 2002). 
3 Morris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 21, 2003, Steele, J. (Mar. 3, 2004). 
4 Morris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 215, 2005, Jacobs, J. (Apr. 13, 2006). 
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 
 
3
denial of Morris’s first postconviction motion, we explicitly determined that 
Morris’s claim that a conflict of interest with his counsel negatively affected the 
outcome of his trial, was without merit.  As such, Morris’s instant claim also is 
procedurally barred as previously adjudicated.7  In the absence of any evidence that 
the claim is worthy of reconsideration,8 we conclude that the Superior Court’s 
judgment must be affirmed.  
 
(5) 
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 the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 
8 Id. 
9 Morris’s February 7, 2011 motion for expansion of the record, which was held in abeyance 
pending the Court’s decision on the merits, is hereby denied as moot.