Title: Blizzard v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 626, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 27, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES F. BLIZZARD,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 626, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 83007303DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 25, 2009  
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Charles F. Blizzard, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s December 10, 2008 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Blizzard and his co-defendant, Ronnie 
Cordell, were indicted in 1983 on charges of Murder in the First Degree 
(felony murder), Robbery in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Second 
Degree.  In March 1984, both defendants were convicted of all three 
 
2 
charges.  Blizzard received a sentence of life without probation or parole on 
the murder conviction and an additional 5 years at Level V on the remaining 
convictions.  Blizzard’s convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct 
appeal.1 
 
(3) 
In 2008, Blizzard moved for postconviction relief in the 
Superior Court.  He claimed that his conviction for felony murder under Del. 
Code Ann. tit. 11, §636(a)(2) should be vacated under Rule 61(i)(5) on the 
ground that there was insufficient evidence presented to the jury that the 
victim was murdered “in furtherance of” the robbery.   
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for 
postconviction relief, Blizzard claims that the Superior Court incorrectly 
determined that his claim was without merit. 
 
(5) 
Before considering the merits of a motion under Rule 61, the 
Superior Court must first determine whether to apply any of the procedural 
bars set forth in the rule.2  Blizzard’s motion, which was filed in 2008, 
plainly was time-barred under Rule 61(i)(1).  Moreover, the motion was 
procedurally defaulted under Rule 61(i)(3) because Blizzard did not raise his 
claim in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.  Blizzard 
seeks to overcome the procedural bars by arguing that, because there was 
                                                 
1 Blizzard v. State, Del. Supr., No. 269, 1984, Christie, C.J. (July 28, 1986). 
2 Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991). 
 
3 
insufficient evidence presented at trial that the murder of the victim was “in 
furtherance of” the robbery, his rights have been violated and his conviction 
resulted in a miscarriage of justice under Rule 61(i)(5).   
 
(6) 
The evidence at trial established that, after midnight on June 4, 
1982, Blizzard and Cordell were sitting under the I-95 overpass on Liberty 
Street in Wilmington, Delaware, when Howard Marshall walked by.  
Blizzard and Cordell grabbed Marshall and punched and kicked him in the 
head and chest.  As Marshall lay on the ground unconscious, Blizzard told 
Cordell to check to see if Marshall had any money.  After taking $10.00 
from his pocket, they dragged Marshall to an adjacent lot and kicked him 
some more.  They then covered the victim with a blanket and left him 
between two trash containers.  The victim’s dead body was found sometime 
thereafter.  An autopsy revealed that the victim had died of asphyxia, which 
resulted from fractures of the thyroid cartilage.   
 
(7) 
  The standard of review in assessing a claim of insufficiency of 
the evidence is “whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in 
the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond 
a reasonable doubt.”3  The record reflects that the evidence adduced at trial 
fully supports a finding that Blizzard committed the murder “in furtherance 
                                                 
3 Robertson v. State, 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (Del. 1991). 
 
4 
of” the robbery.  Specifically, there was evidence that the victim was 
rendered unconscious before his money was taken and also evidence that, 
after his money was taken, the victim continued to be kicked until he was 
dragged to an adjacent lot and covered with a blanket.  Finally, there was 
evidence that the victim died as a result of the beating.  As such, there is no 
indication either that Blizzard’s rights were violated or that there was a 
miscarriage of justice.  We, therefore, conclude that the Superior Court’s 
judgment must be affirmed.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice