Lacombe v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 376, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CLAUDE LACOMBE, § § No. 376, 2025 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1201018188 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: November 17, 2025 Decided: December 29, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, 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 Superior Court’s order

dated September 5, 2025, which adopted a commissioner’s report1 recommending

that the court summarily dismiss the appellant’s successive motion for

postconviction relief, should be affirmed. The Superior Court correctly determined

that the appellant’s claims challenging his convictions and the effectiveness of his

counsel are procedurally barred under Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure

61.2 Moreover, because the Superior Court imposed a sentence within the applicable

1 State v. LaCombe, 2025 WL 2409919 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 18, 2025) (Commissioner’s Report). 2 See DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(a) (“This rule governs the procedure on an application by a person in custody under a sentence of this court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction statutory ranges, his sentence is not illegal under Erlinger v. United States.3 This

Court has previously held that the appellant’s sentence is not disproportionate under

the Eighth Amendment.4

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/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

or a sentence of death on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or on any other ground that is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a collateral attack upon a criminal conviction or a capital sentence.”); id. R. 61(i) (establishing procedural bars to postconviction relief); id. R. 61(d)(2) (setting forth exceptions to certain procedural bars, but only if the movant was convicted after a trial). 3 602 U.S. 821 (2024). See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 2025 WL 3012920 (Del. Oct. 24, 2025) (rejecting claim that court’s consideration of aggravating factors when imposing a sentence above the sentencing guidelines, but within the statutory range, violated Erlinger). 4 LaCombe v. State, 2014 WL 2522273 (Del. May 30, 2014). 2