Court Opinion

ID: 9389327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 16:03:23.38723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.763742
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    MICHAEL BROOMER,                           §
                                               §
        Defendant Below,                       §   No. 420, 2022
        Appellant,                             §
                                               §   Court Below—Superior Court
        v.                                     §   of the State of Delaware
                                               §
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                         §   Cr. ID No. 1504010863A (N)
                                               §
        Appellee.                              §

                               Submitted: March 15, 2023
                               Decided: April 24, 2023

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

                                            ORDER

       After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and motion to appoint

counsel, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal,1 we conclude that

the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order,

dated October 28, 2022, summarily dismissing the appellant’s second motion for

postconviction relief. The appellant, Michael Broomer, clarifies on appeal that he

challenges the effectiveness of his postconviction counsel, but he still failed to plead

with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference of actual innocence2 or a

1
  The amended opening brief filed after the motion to affirm is not properly before this Court, but
in any event would not change the outcome of this appeal.
2
  Super. Cr. Crim R. 61(d)(2)(i).
new, retroactive rule of constitutional law rendering his convictions invalid.3 Nor

has Broomer asserted any claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.4

Broomer’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

          NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED, the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED, and the motion for

appointment of counsel is denied as MOOT.

                                        BY THE COURT:

                                        /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                              Justice

3
    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(ii).
4
    Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
                                          2