Meades v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 16, 2024
• Docket: 56, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT MEADES, § § No. 56, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1101020478 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. § §

Submitted: April 17, 2024 Decided: May 16, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to

affirm and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be

affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its

February 1, 2024 order summarily dismissing the appellant’s fourth motion for

postconviction relief and denying the appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.

The appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief was subject to summary

dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) because he was not convicted

after trial, but instead pleaded guilty in 2012.1

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(ii) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” satisfies 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

additional criteria). See also Wonnum v. State, 2023 WL 329272, at *2 (Del. Jan. 19, 2023) (affirming the Superior Court’s dismissal of the defendant’s third motion for postconviction relief because he was not convicted after trial, but instead pleaded guilty). 2