Title: Page v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 15, 2024
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 16, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARRELL PAGE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 15, 2024 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 9911016961 (N)  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   April 16, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 16, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
(1) 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s 
motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s 
December 13, 2023 order, which adopted a commissioner’s report1 recommending 
that the Superior Court summarily dismiss the appellant’s eighth motion for 
postconviction relief, should be affirmed.  The appellant has not pleaded any 
 
1 State v. Page, 2023 WL 6460279 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2023) (Commissioner’s Report). 
2 
 
circumstances under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) that overcome the procedural bars 
set forth in Rule 61,2 nor does he claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.3 
(2) 
The appellant’s repetitive and frivolous filings constitute an abuse of 
the judicial process.  We have previously warned the appellant that if he continued 
to file appeals from orders denying repetitive claims, he would be enjoined from 
filing future appeals without leave of the Court.4  We reiterate that warning here. 
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 DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for 
postconviction relief “shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial 
and the motion” pleads with particularity either “that new evidence exists that creates a strong 
inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which 
he was convicted” or “a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 
collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to 
the movant’s case and renders the conviction . . . invalid”); see also id. R. 61(i) (establishing 
procedural bars to postconviction relief and exceptions thereto). 
3 Id. R. 61(i)(5). 
4 Page v. State, 2019 WL 6130479 (Del. Nov. 18, 2019).