Court Opinion

ID: 9960141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 16:02:51.301471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:15.357564
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    JONATHAN JOHNSON,                            §
                                                 § No. 296, 2023
          Defendant Below,                       §
          Appellant,                             § Court Below–Superior Court
                                                 § of the State of Delaware
          v.                                     §
                                                 § Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                           §
                                                 §
          Appellee.                              §

                               Submitted: February 7, 2024
                               Decided:   April 12, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                             ORDER

       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 summary dismissal

of the appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief. Because the appellant,

Jonathan Johnson, waived his right to a jury trial and chose to plead guilty, he cannot

avail himself of the “actual-innocence” exception to Superior Court Criminal Rule

61’s procedural bars.1 In any event, the information contained in the police report

that Johnson claims the State did not turn over in discovery is neither new evidence

1
  See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for
postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial
and the motion pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case
and renders the conviction invalid).
nor evidence of Johnson’s actual innocence. We have previously warned Johnson—

who has filed four appeals and two petitions for extraordinary writs relating to his

convictions in this Court in the last four years—that he could be enjoined from filing

future appeals or writs raising repetitive claims without leave of the Court,2 and we

reiterate that warning here.

         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

2
    In re Johnson, 2023 WL 116481, at *2 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023).
                                                 2