Title: Durham v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 207, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES DURHAM, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 207, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 0601013404 (K) 
§                       
 
Submitted: August 23, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 1, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion 
to affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the 
appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief.  On March 28, 2006, the appellant, 
James Durham, pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a vehicle for keeping 
controlled substances (“maintaining a vehicle”), and the Superior Court immediately 
sentenced Durham to three years of incarceration, suspended for eighteen months of 
probation.  Durham did not appeal his conviction or sentence; therefore, his sentence 
became final thirty days thereafter on April 27, 2006.1 
 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1). 
2 
 
(2) 
On May 10, 2022, more than 15 years after his conviction became final 
and long after he finished serving his sentence in this case, Durham filed his first 
motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
Superior Court denied the motion as untimely filed.  Because Durham had already 
completed his sentence for maintaining a vehicle and is currently serving a sentence 
for other convictions—albeit a sentence that was enhanced, in part, on the basis of 
Durham’s maintaining-a-vehicle conviction—the Superior Court also found that 
Durham did not have standing to file the motion. 
(3) 
On appeal, Durham argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion 
by denying his motion for lack of standing.  As he did below, Durham also argues 
that (i) he has new evidence of his actual innocence and (ii) the Court should consider 
his ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the “miscarriage of justice” 
exception to Rule 61. 
(4) 
We need not address Durham’s argument that he had standing to file 
the Rule 61 motion because we affirm the Superior Court’s ruling that Durham’s 
motion was procedurally barred as untimely filed.  Moreover, Durham’s co-
defendant’s unsworn vague statements and opinions2 do not constitute new evidence 
 
2 On appeal, Durham does not cite any specific new evidence of his actual innocence.  Below, 
however, Durham alleged that his co-defendant “took ownership” of the drugs that formed the 
basis of Durham’s conviction for maintaining a vehicle in a letter an undated letter addressed to 
“Maine” from “Xavier” (presumably Xavier Ramos, Durham’s co-defendant).  But Ramos’s 
alleged confession does not absolve Durham of anything. App. to Opening Br., Ex. A (“I know 
you ain’t mad at me about the one time the police pulled us over and searched the wheels…. They 
3 
 
that Durham is actually innocent of the charge to which Durham, as indicated by his 
representations on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, freely and voluntarily 
pleaded guilty.3  As a final matter, contrary to Durham’s argument on appeal, there 
is no longer a “miscarriage of justice” exception to the procedural bars of Rule 61. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
charged us with a particle that was in the cup holder because they was mad that they didn’t find 
anything else on us or in the car. How they gonna charge me with a particle that wasn’t even 
enough for analysis like the police report said.  You know I took that charge.  I pleaded out to the 
possession and had to do [the C]onnections [Program] for it.  So I hope you can forgive me for 
putting you through that but I took my charge.  I never wanted for you to go through that.  You 
know we take whatever is ours. And that I did. Did you get anything out of it because you shouldn’t 
got anything.  They shouldn’t even have charged you because I was the one driving.”). 
3 See Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (holding that, in the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, a defendant is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-
Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and by his sworn testimony prior to the Superior Court’s acceptance 
of the guilty plea).