Hartman v. State
This text of Hartman v. State (Hartman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM HARTMAN, § § Defendant Below, § No. 435, 2017 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0508007488 (S) § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: November 14, 2017 Decided: December 19, 2017
Before VALIHURA,VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 19th day of December 2017, after consideration of the appellant's opening
brief, the State's motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that
the judgment below should be affirmed. The Superior Court did not err in dismissing
the appellant's second motion for postconviction relief. The motion was
procedurally barred and failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). 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/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hartman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-state-del-2017.