Morton v. State
This text of Morton v. State (Morton 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
JEFFREY MORTON, § § Defendant Below, § No. 38, 2022 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1910007361 (N) § Appellee. §
Submitted: February 9, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s
motion to affirm and the record below, we conclude that the Superior Court order
denying the second motion for sentence reduction filed by the appellant, Jeffrey
Morton, should be affirmed. Superior Court Criminal “Rule 35(b) does not set forth
any exception to the repetitive motion bar.”1
1 State v. Culp, 152 A.3d 141, 144 (Del. Dec. 8, 2016). See also Martinez v. Metzger, 2018 WL 3768993, at *3 (Del. Aug. 7, 2018) (affirming the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for sentence reduction as repetitive). 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Morton v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-state-del-2022.