Title: Santiago v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 483, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 16, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DENNIS SANTIAGO, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 483, 2000 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN-89-02-1021 and 
§  1023, and IN89-02-0344 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 20, 2001 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: March 13, 2001 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Dennis Santiago, pled guilty in 1989 to 
first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two weapon offenses. The Superior 
Court sentenced Santiago to life imprisonment plus twenty years.  Santiago did 
not appeal his convictions or sentences.  In 1992, Santiago filed a motion for 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court summarily denied.  This Court 
affirmed that decision on appeal.1  In 1995, Santiago unsuccessfully sought 
federal habeas relief.  In March 2000, he filed a second motion for 
 
2 
postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  Santiago voluntarily 
dismissed his appeal from that order.  In September 2000, he once again filed a 
motion for state postconviction relief.  This is Santiago’s appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of that motion.   
(2) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions, we 
find it manifest that the judgment should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior 
Court=s well-reasoned decision dated September 19, 2000.  The Superior Court 
did not err in concluding that all of the Santiago’s claims were procedurally 
barred as repetitive and/or untimely2 and that his claims did not fall within any 
of the exceptions to the procedural bars under Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61(i).  Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s 
summary disposition of Santiago’s claims without holding a hearing.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm 
is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
1 Santiago v. State, No. 539, 1992, Holland, J. (Apr. 21, 1993) (ORDER). 
2 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (2). 
3 See Maxion v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 148, 11 (1996).