Title: Johnson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 511, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROGER JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 511, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID No. 9908000065   
§  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 2, 2018 
Decided: 
December 27, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Roger Johnson, appeals from the Superior Court’s order 
denying his third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on 
the ground that it is manifest on the face of Johnson’s opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In May 2000, a Superior Court jury convicted Johnson of two counts of 
Robbery in the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  On November 15, 
 
2 
2000, the Superior Court sentenced Johnson as a habitual offender to twenty years 
at Level 5 incarceration for each of the counts of Robbery First Degree and 
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony.  On direct appeal, this 
Court affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentence.1  In 2008 and 2012, this Court 
affirmed the Superior Court’s denials of Johnson’s two previous motions for 
postconviction relief.2 
(3) 
Johnson filed his third motion for postconviction relief on August 27, 
2018.  The Superior Court denied the motion on September 10, 2018. The Superior 
Court held that the motion was procedurally barred by Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61.  Johnson now appeals to this Court.   
(4) 
We affirm.  Johnson has not overcome the bars to second or subsequent 
postconviction motions that are set forth in Rule 61 by pleading with particularity 
any new evidence of actual innocence or any new, retroactive rule of constitutional 
law that applies to his case and renders his conviction invalid.3  Nor has he asserted 
any valid claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over his case.4  His 
                                                 
1 Johnson v. State, 2002 WL 1343761 (Del. June 18, 2002). 
2 Johnson v. State, 2008 WL 1778241 (Del. Apr. 21, 2009); Johnson v. State, 2012 WL 252394 
(Del. Jan. 25, 2012). 
3 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(d)(2).  See also SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1)-(4). 
4 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(5). 
 
3 
assertion that Rule 61 “allows the court to review a claim of lack of jurisdiction to 
convict Johnson under Winship” is unavailing.  The decision of the United States 
Supreme Court in In re Winship5 does not pertain to any issue of jurisdiction. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
5 397 U.S. 358 (1970). 
 
4