Title: Hainey v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 498, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 26, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASON A. HAINEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 498, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0306015699 (N) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  November 13, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     December 26, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 
motion to affirm,1 and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below 
should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated August 23, 2018, 
adopting the Commissioner’s report and recommendations, dated July 13, 2018.  The 
Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s second motion for 
postconviction relief was procedurally barred and did not satisfy the pleading 
requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).  The Court declines to 
                                               
 
1 On November 26, 2018, the appellant filed a motion for leave to respond to the motion to affirm. 
Under Supreme Court Rule 25(a), a response to a motion to affirm is not permitted unless requested 
by the Court. The Court did not request a response to the motion to affirm and finds no reason to 
request a response after considering the appellant’s motion. 
2 
 
address the appellant’s confrontation clause argument because he did not raise it in 
the Superior Court.2 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                               
 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 8.