Court Opinion

ID: 9555894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 16:06:40.917042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:28.244707
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    ORIN TURNER,                           §
                                           § No. 97, 2023
          Defendant Below,                 §
          Appellant,                       § Court Below—Superior Court
                                           § of the State of Delaware
          v.                               §
                                           § Cr. ID No. 0609012387A (K)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                     §
                                           §
          Appellee.                        §

                               Submitted: July 18, 2023
                               Decided:   August 14, 2023

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, 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 judgment below should be

affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated March 9, 2023, summarily

dismissing the appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief. The appellant has

not pleaded with particularity 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 We also find no reversible error in the Superior

Court’s denial of the motion for transcripts at State expense, which the appellant

1
    DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i).
2
    Id. R. 61(i)(5).
filed after the Superior Court denied his motion for postconviction relief. The

appellant did not present the requested transcripts to the Superior Court in support

of his motion for postconviction relief, and he has not demonstrated how the

transcripts would assist him in presenting a claim that is not procedurally barred.3

       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/ Abigail M. LeGrow
                                             Justice

3
  See Pernot v. State, 2020 WL 130242, at *2 (Del. Jan. 10, 2020) (affirming Superior Court’s
denial of motion for transcript at State expense where the appellant “did not identify any factual
or legal grounds that would merit postconviction relief”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703
A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court
reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court.”).
                                                2