Title: McCleaf v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 683, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 28, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY MCCLEAF, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 683, 2002  
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID. 9910005729 
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 17, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: February 28, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Anthony McCleaf, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s order, dated December 2, 2002, denying his motion for a 
new trial.  McCleaf had been convicted in February 2000 of shoplifting, 
second degree forgery, and criminal impersonation.  The Superior Court 
sentenced him in July 2000, and this Court affirmed his convictions and 
 
2
sentence on direct appeal.1 McCleaf filed his motion for a new trial in July 
2002 contending that a 2002 legislative amendment to 11 Del. C. § 877, 
which defines the offense of offering a false instrument for filing, 
undermined his 2000 conviction for second degree forgery.  The Superior 
Court denied the motion. This appeal ensued. 
 
(2) 
The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of McCleaf’s opening brief that 
his appeal is without merit.  The State argues, alternatively, that: (i) 
McCleaf’s motion for a new trial was untimely;2 and (ii) McCleaf’s motion 
was substantively frivolous because the 2002 legislative change to the 
statute defining the offense of offering a false instrument for filing was of no 
legal consequence to McCleaf’s 2000 conviction for second degree forgery. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of McCleaf’s opening brief and the 
State’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment of the 
Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-
reasoned decision dated December 2, 2002.  The Superior Court did not err 
in concluding that McCleaf’s motion for a new trial was not based on newly-
                                                 
1 McCleaf v. State, 2001 WL 1586810 (Del. Dec. 4, 2001). 
2 See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 33 (providing that any motion for a new trial that 
is not based on newly discovered evidence must filed within seven days after a finding of 
guilt). 
 
3
discovered evidence and thus was time-barred and that McCleaf’s argument 
concerning the statutory amendment was not relevant to his case.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice