Smith v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ZAAHIR SMITH, § § No. 253, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1605014734A (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 4, 2023 Decided: December 11, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

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

affirm, and the record on appeal, we find it evident that the judgment below should

be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons cited by the Superior Court in its June

20, 2023 order denying the appellant’s first, untimely motion for postconviction

relief.1 Although the Superior Court noted that the claims raised in the appellant’s

supplemental response were time-barred, it nonetheless considered them on their

merits. And the court—which appointed counsel to assist the appellant with the

postconviction proceedings and expanded the record with briefing as well as an

1 State v. Smith, 2023 WL 4102774 (Del. Super. Ct. June 20, 2023). affidavit from trial counsel—did not abuse its discretion by declining to expand the

record further.2

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

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g)(1) (noting that the Superior Court may direct the parties to expand the record). 2