Title: Cropper v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 309, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 10, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DWAYNE E. CROPPER,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 309, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN96-02-0924-
§                               0925
§
Submitted: October 26, 2001
  Decided:   December 10, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 10th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Dwayne E. Cropper, filed this appeal
from the June 15, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Cropper claims that the Superior Court abused its
discretion by: a) denying his motion for postconviction relief without an
evidentiary hearing; b) denying his motion for appointment of counsel; and c)
1Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993).  In his motion for
postconviction relief in the Superior Court, Cropper also argued that his counsel provided
ineffective assistance.
211 Del. C. § 4214(a).
3Cropper v. State, Del. Supr., No. 200, 1999, Holland, J., 2000 WL 139992 (Jan.
21, 2000) (ORDER).
4Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h) (1) and (3); Shelton v. State, Del. Supr., 744 A.2d
465, 510 (2000).
-2-
assigning his case to a new judge who approached his claims with a closed
mind.  To the extent Cropper has not argued other grounds to support his
appeal that were previously raised, those grounds are deemed waived and will
not be addressed by this Court.1
(3)
In February 1999, Cropper was found guilty by a Superior Court
jury of Attempted Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly
Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced as an
habitual offender2 to 35 years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 10
years of decreasing levels of supervision.  This Court affirmed Cropper’s
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.3    
(4)
There is no merit to Cropper’s claims.  First, whether an
evidentiary hearing is scheduled on a motion for postconviction relief is within
the discretion of the Superior Court.4  There was no abuse of discretion in the
5Garnett v. State, Del. Supr., No. 529, 1997, Berger, J., 1998 WL 184489 (Apr.
9, 1998) (ORDER) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)).
6Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e) (1).
7Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d) (1).
8Contrary to Cropper’s contention, it was a proper exercise of the judge’s discretion
not to consider Cropper’s untimely request for additional time to respond to his attorney’s
affidavit pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(g) (2).  
-3-
Superior Court’s determination that there was sufficient record evidence to
decide Cropper’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.  Second, there is no
right to court-appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings5 and counsel
will be appointed only for good cause shown.6  In the absence of a showing
of good cause, the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion to deny
Cropper’s request for counsel.  Finally, the Superior Court judge who decided
Cropper’s motion was properly assigned to his case following the retirement
of the original judge.7  There is, moreover, no evidence that the judge, who
issued a lengthy and thorough decision, did not give the matter due
consideration or approached Cropper’s claims with a closed mind.8  
9Cropper’s motion to strike the State’s Answering Brief is without merit and,
therefore, is denied.
-4-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.9
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice