Court Opinion

ID: 9917108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 17:02:26.109436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:00.287443
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    JERMAINE BRINKLEY,                         §
                                               § No. 371, 2023
        Defendant Below,                       §
        Appellant,                             § Court Below—Superior Court
                                               § of the State of Delaware
        v.                                     §
                                               § Cr. ID No. 1412017874 (K)
    STATE OF DELAWARE,                         §
                                               §
        Appellee.                              §

                              Submitted: November 21, 2023
                              Decided:   January 10, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, 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 September 13, 2023,

summarily dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief.

Contrary to his claim on appeal, the appellant has not pleaded circumstances under

Rule 61(d)(2)(i) that overcome the procedural bars set forth in Rule 61(i)(1) and

(i)(2).1 The appellant pleaded guilty, and his assertion that he has new evidence that

1
  See DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(i)(5) (“The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and
(4) of this subdivision shall not apply either to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a
claim that satisfies the pleading requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d)
of this rule.”).
law enforcement illegally or improperly used cell-site simulators or related devices2

to gather evidence against him, even if true, does not create a “strong inference” that

he is “actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was

convicted.”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/ Gary F. Traynor
                                               Justice

2
  See Brian L. Owsley, Triggerfish, Stingrays, and Fourth Amendment Fishing Expeditions, 66
HASTINGS L.J. 183, 185 (2014) (explaining that Stingray, Triggerfish, Kingfish, and Harpoon are
“brand names of similar devices,” known more broadly as “cell site simulators,” that “deceive[]
nearby cell phones into believing that the device is a cell tower so that the cell phone’s information
is then downloaded into the cell site simulator”); see also Shawn Marie Boyne, Stingray
Technology, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Future of Privacy: A Cautionary Tale, 119 W. VA. L.
REV. 915, 917 & n.11 (2017) (similarly identifying the devices and stating that “[u]sing so-called
StingRay tracking devices, government agencies may track the location of a particular cellphone,
access content such as text messages, as well as record phone conversations”).
3
  DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(d)(2)(i).
                                                  2