State v. Grinnell-Cropper
This text of State v. Grinnell-Cropper (State v. Grinnell-Cropper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 1312000103 ) A’KEEM GRINNELL-CROPPER, ) ) Defendant. )
Submitted: January 25, 2017 Decided: February 14, 2017
ORDER ADOPTING COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED AND COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW SHOULD BE GRANTED
This 14th day of February, 2017, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for
Postconviction Relief (the “Rule 61 Motion”) filed by A’Keem Grinnell-Cropper, SBI#
00467015; the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation That Defendant’s Motion
for Postconviction Relief Should Be Denied and Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Should
be Granted (the “Report”) issued by Superior Court Commissioner Lynne M. Parker on
January 25, 2017; and the record in this case:
1. The Court referred the Motion to a Commissioner pursuant to 10 Del. C.
§512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 621 for proposed findings of facts and
conclusions of law.
2. On January 25, 2017, Commissioner Parker filed the Report. In the
Report, Commissioner Parker reports and recommends that the Rule 61 Motion be
denied. The Prothonotary docketed the Report on January 25, 2017.
1 Hereafter, any Superior Court Criminal Rule referenced in this Order will be cited as “Rule __.” 3. The Report was served on Mr. Grinnell-Cropper. Under Rule 62(4)(ii),
any objections to the Report needed to be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the
Report. Mr. Grinnell-Cropper did not file any objections to the Report.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this
action, and for reasons stated in the Report,
IT IS FOUND AND DETERMINED that the Report is not clearly erroneous, is
not contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion, and
IT IS ORDERED that the Report, including its recommendation, is ADOPTED
by the Court, and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction
Relief is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw filed by Mr.
Grinnell-Cropper’s post-conviction relief counsel is GRANTED.
/s/Eric M. Davis Eric M. Davis, Judge
Original to Prothonotary: cc: Commissioner Lynne M. Parker A’Keem Grinnell-Cropper, SBI# 00467015 Patrick J. Collins, Esquire Matthew C. Buckworth, Esquire
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Grinnell-Cropper, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grinnell-cropper-delsuperct-2017.