Title: Meades v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 409, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT MEADES, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 409, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1101020478 (S) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  October 28, 2019 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:     November 26, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s 
motion to affirm, the appellant’s motion for abeyance, the appellee’s response, and 
the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Meades, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order, dated August 26, 2019, summarily dismissing his third motion for 
postconviction relief.1  After he filed his opening brief in this Court and the State of 
Delaware filed a motion to affirm the Superior’s Court’s judgment, Meades filed a 
                                                 
1 State v. Meades, 2019 WL 4034352 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2019). 
2 
 
motion for abeyance.  He sought a stay of these proceedings so that he could advance 
a claim relevant to this appeal in the Superior Court.  The State opposes the motion.   
(2) 
The motion for abeyance is denied.  Meades does not identify the claim 
that he contends is relevant to this appeal and that he wishes to first pursue in the 
Superior Court.  Meades has not established good cause for a stay of this appeal. 
(3) 
We also conclude that the Superior Court order summarily dismissing 
Meades’s third motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed.  Meades was not 
convicted after trial and did not satisfy the requirements of Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61(d)(2).2  In addition, Meades was not entitled to a hearing under 11 Del. C. 
§ 408 at the time of his guilty plea as he contends and the record reflects that he was 
competent to plead guilty.       
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion for abeyance is 
DENIED.  The motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall 
be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with 
particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant was actually innocent or a 
new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review).