Title: Deputy v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 254, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 254, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 9612008864 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  May 19, 2010 
Decided:  August 2, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of August 2010, upon consideration of the opening brief, 
the motion to affirm and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court 
that:  
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth T. Deputy, has appealed the Superior 
Court’s April 22, 2010 summary dismissal of his fourth motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 
61”).1  Deputy argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion when 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (listing procedural bars to postconviction relief). 
 
2
dismissing the motion on procedural grounds.2  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground 
that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.3  We agree and affirm.    
 
(2) 
The Superior Court did not err when dismissing Deputy’s 
fourth motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred pursuant to 
Rule 61(i)(1), (2) and (4).4  Consideration of Deputy’s claims also is not 
warranted in the interest of justice, on the basis that the Superior Court 
lacked jurisdiction, or on the basis of a constitutional violation.5  In reaching 
this conclusion, the Court rejects Deputy’s argument that the Court’s 2009 
opinion in Maddox v. State suggests a basis to reconsider his previously 
unsuccessful claim of a fatally defective indictment.6 
 
                                          
 
2 Deputy’s postconviction claims as summarized are defective indictment, erroneous jury 
instruction, missing jury instruction and ineffective assistance of counsel.    
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
4  See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R.61(i)(1) (barring claim filed more than three years after 
judgment is final or after newly recognized retroactively applicable right (amended 2005 
to reduce limitations period to one year for conviction final after July 1, 2005)); (i)(2) 
(barring repetitive motions); (i)(4) (barring formerly adjudicated claims).  See also 
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 150 (Del. 1996) (providing that the Superior Court must 
address the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before reaching the merits of any 
postconviction claims). 
5 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (providing for reconsideration of formerly 
adjudicated claim in interest of justice); (i)(5) (providing that procedural bar is 
inapplicable to a jurisdictional claim or to a colorable claim of a constitutional violation).  
6 See Maddox v. State, 2009 WL 2323490 (Del. Supr.) (rejecting argument that the 
indictment was constitutionally defective because it omitted an element of the crime). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice