Title: Wallace v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 295, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDEN WALLACE, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 295, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1004000821 (N) 
§   
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 30, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 31, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s 
motion to affirm, and the record below, we conclude that the judgment below 
should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior 
Court in its June 13, 2019 order summarily dismissing the appellant’s second 
motion for postconviction relief.  Contrary to the appellant’s contention, a 
claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel does not relieve a 
defendant of the burden of satisfying the requirements of Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) in order to avoid the summary dismissal of a second 
 
2 
or subsequent postconviction motion.1  Moreover, the appellant does not have 
a constitutional right to challenge the effectiveness of his postconviction 
counsel because he had no constitutional right to counsel in those 
proceedings.2   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Durham v. State, 2017 WL 5450746, at *2 (Del. Nov. 13, 2017). 
2 Asbury v. State, 2019 WL 4696781, at *4 (Del. Sept. 25, 2019).