Court Opinion

ID: 9960142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 16:02:52.992189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:16.022467
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    DANIEL R. EYSTER,                         §
                                              § No. 350, 2023
          Defendant Below,                    §
          Appellant,                          § Court Below—Superior Court
                                              § of the State of Delaware
          v.                                  §
                                              § Cr. ID No. 1509003526 (K)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                        §
                                              §
    Appellee.                                 §

                              Submitted: February 21, 2024
                              Decided:   April 12, 2024

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

                                           ORDER

         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 August

30, 2023, and September 19, 2023 orders denying the appellant’s third motion for

postconviction relief should be affirmed.             The appellant has not pleaded any

circumstances under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) that overcome the procedural bars

set forth in Rule 61,1 nor does he claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.2

1
   See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 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).
2
  Id. R. 61(i)(5).
     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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                      Chief Justice

                                   2