Title: Ward v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 464, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 27, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LARRY L. WARD,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 464, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN88-11-0589-0590
§
§
Submitted: October 23, 2001
  Decided:   November 27, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 27th day of November 2001, 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, Larry L. Ward, filed this appeal from
the September 12, 2001 order of the Superior Court summarily dismissing his
second motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
Rule 61.  Plaintiff-appellee State of Delaware has moved to affirm the
judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
2Ward v. State, Del. Supr., 575A.2d 1156 (1990).
3The grounds for the motion were ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on
appeal, abuse of discretion and plain error on the part of the judge, and violation of the
right of confrontation.
4Ward v. State, Del. Supr., No. 23, 1992, Moore, J., 1992 WL 115185 (Apr. 30,
1992) (ORDER).
5Ward has, therefore, waived his right to argue any additional claims on appeal.
Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 1150, 1152-53 (1993).
-2-
of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and
AFFIRM.
(2)
In 1989 Ward was convicted by a Superior Court jury of
Attempted Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon
During the Commission of a Felony.  Ward was sentenced to a life term at
Level V for the murder conviction and to 3 years incarceration at Level V for
the weapon conviction.  This Court affirmed Ward’s convictions and sentences
on direct appeal.2  In 1991 Ward filed his first motion for postconviction
relief.3  This Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of the motion.4
While Ward’s second motion for postconviction relief asserted all the claims
asserted in his first motion, he chose to appeal to this Court only the claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel.5  
6Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991).
7Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4).
8Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4) and (5).  There is no evidence that any alleged error
on the part of counsel resulted in prejudice to Ward.  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 688, 694 (1984).
-3-
(3)
In reviewing Ward’s motion for postconviction relief, the
Superior Court correctly first determined whether the motion was procedurally
barred before it addressed the merits of the underlying claims.6  The Superior
Court also correctly determined that Ward’s motion, which asserted claims
identical to those asserted in his previous motion, was procedurally barred as
formerly adjudicated7 and that Ward’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel did not provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration of his claims.8
(4)
It is manifest on the face of Ward’s 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,
clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. NormanVeasey
Chief Justice