Jamison v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SEAN JAMISON, § § No. 325, 2024

Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 9910021436 (N)

STATE OF DELAWARE, § §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 25, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025

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 affirm on the basis of the Superior Court’s

order dated July 12, 2024. Whether the withholding of postconviction relief in this

case is appropriately characterized as summary dismissal or denial is immaterial.

The motion for postconviction relief, the appellant’s second, was filed more than

one year after the judgment of conviction became final, and both judges correctly

2

concluded that the motion did not plead any circumstances under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or

(d)(2)(ii).1 The motion did not overcome the procedural bars set forth in Rule 61.2

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

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

1 See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief “shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with particularity either “that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted” or “a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction . . . invalid”). 2 See id.; see also id. R. 61(i) (establishing procedural bars to postconviction relief and exceptions thereto).