Court Opinion

ID: 9945818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:02:13.954096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:13.516999
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    MICHAEL T. WASHINGTON,                       §
                                                 § No. 435, 2023
         Defendant Below,                        §
         Appellant,                              § Court Below—Superior Court
                                                 § of the State of Delaware
         v.                                      §
                                                 § Cr. ID No. 0909018475A, B (N)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                           §
                                                 §
         Appellee.                               §
                                                 §

                               Submitted: January 23, 2024
                               Decided:   February 27, 2024

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

                                              ORDER

       After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s

motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record,1 we conclude that the Superior

1
  The Court has also reviewed the documents that the appellant submitted after the State filed its
motion to affirm—which include documents filed on January 29, 2024, February 5, 2024, and
February 7, 2024—and has determined that they do not change the result. Moreover, the appellant
is incorrect that the State’s motion to affirm, filed January 23, 2024, was untimely because it was
filed more than ten days after the opening brief was filed on January 10, 2024. See DEL. SUPR. CT.
R. 25(a) (authorizing service and filing of motion to affirm within ten days after service of opening
brief); id. R. 11(a) (providing that “[i]n computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by
these Rules . . ., the day of the act, event or default after which the designated period of time begins
to run shall not be included” and the “last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless
it is a Saturday or Sunday, or other legal holiday, or other day on which the office of the Clerk is
closed, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day on which the office of the
Clerk is open”); id. R. 11(c) (“Whenever a participant has the right to or is required to do some act
or take some proceeding within a prescribed period after being served and service is made by mail
or by eFiling, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period. The additional 3 day period applies
only as to acts taken by participants and does not apply to actions taken by the Court.”).
Court judgment should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in

the Superior Court’s October 30, 2023 order2 and the Superior Court’s November

14, 2023 order denying reargument or reconsideration of the October 30, 2023 order.

We warn the appellant that if he continues to file appeals from orders dismissing

untimely and repetitive claims in the Superior Court, he will be enjoined from filing

future appeals without leave of the Court.

         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/ N. Christopher Griffiths
                                             Justice

2
    State v. Washington, 2023 WL 7140800 (Del. Oct. 30, 2023).
                                               2