Title: Trump v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 404, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
   JAMES G. TRUMP, SR.,                   
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 404, 2004  
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. ID No. 9703005786 
                      
 
Submitted: January 7, 2005   
   Decided: March 9, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 9th day of March 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, James G. Trump, Sr., filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s August 2, 2004 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief and its September 2, 2004 order denying his motion for reargument.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
In July 1998, Trump was convicted by a Superior Court jury of 15 
counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree.  He was sentenced to a 
total of 225 years incarceration at Level V.  On direct appeal, this Court affirmed 
 
 
-2-
Trump’s convictions and sentences.1  Trump filed a motion for postconviction 
relief on September 6, 2000.  In January 2001, the Superior Court granted his 
request for leave to withdraw the motion.  On December 15, 2003, Trump filed a 
second motion for postconviction relief and, on January 22, 2004, he filed an 
amended motion for postconviction relief.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Trump claims that the Superior Court erred: a) by 
denying his postconviction claims as time barred because his inadvertent failure to 
introduce the victim’s diary into evidence at trial constituted a “miscarriage of 
justice” that excuses his untimely filing; and b) by denying his motion for 
reargument.  
 
(4) 
A motion for postconviction relief “may not be filed more than three 
years after the judgment of conviction is final . . . .”2  The time bar may be 
overcome only upon a showing by the movant of a “colorable claim that there was 
a miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the 
fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to 
the judgment of conviction.”3   
                                                 
1 Trump v. State, 753 A.2d 963 (Del. 2000).  Trump’s conviction became final on June 29, 2000, 
when this Court issued the mandate.   Jackson v. State, 654 A.2d 829, 832-33 (Del. 1995). 
2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1). 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
 
-3-
 
(5) 
Trump does not dispute that his motion for postconviction relief was 
not filed within the three-year time limitation.  Rather, he argues that his untimely 
motion should be excused because it was a “miscarriage of justice” for the jury not 
to consider the victim’s diary.  Trump argues that he would more likely than not 
have been acquitted of the charges against him if the victim’s diary had been 
presented to the jury because it would have shown that she was lying about the 
dates she allegedly was molested.  There is no support in the record for Trump’s 
claim.  As such, it does not rise to the level of a “colorable claim” of a 
“miscarriage of justice” that would overcome the time bar.4   
 
(6) 
Trump’s second claim is that the Superior Court committed legal error 
when it denied his motion for reargument.  That claim also is without merit.  The 
Superior Court correctly ruled that Trump was not entitled to reargument because 
there was no evidence that it had overlooked any applicable legal precedent or 
misapprehended the law or the facts in such a manner as would affect the outcome 
of Trump’s motion for postconviction relief.5   
 
 
                                                 
4 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 555 (Del. 1990).  To the extent Trump seeks to attribute the 
“miscarriage of justice” to ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, we find no support in the 
record for such a claim.  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 
5 Hessler, Inc. v. Farrell, 260 A.2d 701, 702 (Del. 1969). 
 
 
-4-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice