Court Opinion

ID: 9892577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:09:46.263839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:23.521199
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    THOMAS R. MILLER,                           §
                                                § No. 125, 2023
        Defendant Below,                        §
        Appellant,                              § Court Below–Superior Court
                                                § of the State of Delaware
        v.                                      §
                                                § Cr. ID No. 92S05488DI (S)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                          §
                                                §
        Appellee.                               §

                              Submitted: July 28, 2023
                              Decided:   October 23, 2023

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, 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 denial of the

appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief.               The appellant cannot avail

himself of the “actual innocence” exception to the procedural bars of Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61 because his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective

assistance of counsel1 do not constitute new evidence of his actual innocence.2 And,

1
  Although the appellant articulates slightly different arguments on appeal than he raised below,
they all concern the manner in which defense counsel and the prosecution addressed the
admissibility of the victim’s rape kit, the contents of which the appellant claims would exonerate
him. Notably, the appellant cites the trial transcript in support of these claims of “new” evidence.
2
  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 pleads with particularity (i) new evidence of actual innocence or (ii) that a new rule of
contrary to the appellant’s argument on appeal, there is no longer a “miscarriage of

justice” exception to Rule 61’s procedural bars.3 Finally, the Court has previously

warned the appellant that if he continues to file appeals from the Superior Court’s

denial of repetitive claims, he will be enjoined from filing further appeals without

leave of the Court.4 We reiterate that admonition 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/ Abigail M. LeGrow
                                                     Justice

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applies to the movant’s case and
renders the conviction invalid).
3
  For the first time on appeal, the appellant claims that he is entitled to relief from his criminal
convictions under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). He is not. Rule 61 provides the exclusive
means by which a defendant can seek collateral review of his convictions. Del. Super. Ct. Crim.
R. 61(a)(2).
4
  Miller v. State, 2018 WL 3006123, at *1 (Del. June 14, 2018).
                                                 2