Court Opinion

ID: 9930302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 17:02:41.301847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:12:55.320272
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    THOMAS ROBLES,                          §
                                            § No. 263, 2023
           Defendant Below,                 §
           Appellant,                       § Court Below–Superior Court
                                            § of the State of Delaware
           v.                               §
                                            § Cr. ID No. 1601002267 (N)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                      §
                                            §
           Appellee.                        §

                                 Submitted: November 22, 2023
                                 Decided:   February 5, 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 order denying the

appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief. The appellant’s motion, filed six

years after his convictions became final, was procedurally barred as untimely filed.1

And, contrary to his claims on appeal, neither the appellant’s co-defendant’s

purported recantation nor the appellant’s mental health treatment records constitutes

new evidence that the appellant is actually innocent of the crimes to which he

1
    Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty.2 Under the circumstances

presented here, we also find that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when

it denied the appellant’s motions for transcripts and discovery.3

       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
  See Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (“In the absence of clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty
Plea Form and by his sworn testimony prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea.”).
3
  See Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008) (observing that an indigent
defendant does not have an absolute right to transcripts prepared at State expense in postconviction
proceedings).
                                                 2