Title: Brinkley v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 371, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE BRINKLEY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 371, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1412017874 (K)  
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   November 21, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
January 10, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated September 13, 2023, 
summarily dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief.  
Contrary to his claim on appeal, the appellant has not pleaded circumstances under 
Rule 61(d)(2)(i) that overcome the procedural bars set forth in Rule 61(i)(1) and 
(i)(2).1  The appellant pleaded guilty, and his assertion that he has new evidence that 
 
1 See DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(i)(5) (“The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
(4) of this subdivision shall not apply either to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a 
claim that satisfies the pleading requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) 
of this rule.”). 
2 
 
law enforcement illegally or improperly used cell-site simulators or related devices2 
to gather evidence against him, even if true, does not create a “strong inference” that 
he is “actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was 
convicted.”3 
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 
 
2 See Brian L. Owsley, Triggerfish, Stingrays, and Fourth Amendment Fishing Expeditions, 66 
HASTINGS L.J. 183, 185 (2014) (explaining that Stingray, Triggerfish, Kingfish, and Harpoon are 
“brand names of similar devices,” known more broadly as “cell site simulators,” that “deceive[] 
nearby cell phones into believing that the device is a cell tower so that the cell phone’s information 
is then downloaded into the cell site simulator”); see also Shawn Marie Boyne, Stingray 
Technology, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Future of Privacy:  A Cautionary Tale, 119 W. VA. L. 
REV. 915,  917 & n.11 (2017) (similarly identifying the devices and stating that “[u]sing so-called 
StingRay tracking devices, government agencies may track the location of a particular cellphone, 
access content such as text messages, as well as record phone conversations”). 
3 DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(d)(2)(i).