Desmond v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 20, 2023
• Docket: 23, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, § § Defendant Below, § No. 23, 2023 Appellant, § § Court Below: Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 91009844DI § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 2, 2023 Decided: February 20, 2023

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

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On January 23, 2023, the appellant, Christopher Desmond, filed a

notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 10, 2023, which denied

Desmond’s “Motion for the Court to Amend the Unauthorized and Misinformation

Enclosed in the Presentence Report.” Desmond also filed an incomplete and

unsigned motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis.

(2) Desmond has filed numerous writs and motions for postconviction and

other relief over the years, including at least sixteen motions for postconviction relief.1 Because of Desmond’s repetitive filing of frivolous claims, in 2014 this

Court directed the Clerk “to refuse any filing from Desmond unless the filing is

accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications under 10 Del. C. §

8803(e), and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by this Court.”2

(3) Following the receipt of the current notice of appeal, the Senior Court

Clerk issued a notice identifying the 2014 order regarding future filings and directing

Desmond to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed because he had

failed to pay the required filing fee or to file a completed motion to proceed in forma

pauperis with the certifications that he is required to make under 10 Del. C. §

8803(e). The notice also stated that “[t]o the extent that you submit a completed

motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis in response to this notice to show

cause, you must also demonstrate that the issues that you seek to raise have never

been raised or disposed of before and are not foreclosed by controlling law.”

(4) In response to the notice to show cause, Desmond has not paid the filing

fee or provided a completed motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis with

the required certifications. Instead, he asserts that the Superior Court erred by

denying his motion seeking amendment of his presentence report, which was

1 See, e.g., Desmond v. State, 2022 WL 16570935 (Del. Oct. 31, 2022) (affirming denial of sixteenth motion for postconviction relief). 2 Desmond v. State, No. 567, 2014, Docket Entry No. 22 (Del. Feb. 11, 2015).

2 completed thirty years ago. His response does not address the deficiencies in his

incomplete, unsigned motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal

is therefore dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice