State v. Majette

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedNovember 5, 2019
Docket1304020306 1301018022
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Majette (State v. Majette) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Majette, (Del. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

CRAIG A. KARSNITZ, SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE JUDGE 1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2

GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

TELEPHONE (302) 856-5263

November 5, 2019

Tyrone Majette

SBI# 7344147

James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, DE 19977

Re: State of Delaware v. Tyrone Majette, Cr. Nos. 1304020306 & 1301018022 (R-3)

Dear Mr. Majette:

On September 25, 2019, you filed your third motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Rule Criminal Rule 61 with respect to the above-referenced matters. I am considering two (2) filings at this time:

Motion for Postconviction Relief filed September 25, 2019 Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed September 25, 2019

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) provides:

“A second or subsequent motion under this rule shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion either: (i) pleads with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted; or (ii) pleads with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.”

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(5) provides:

“For an indigent movant’s second or subsequent postconviction motion, the judge may appoint counsel for an indigent movant only if the judge determines

that the second or subsequent motion satisfies the pleading requirements of [Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2), set forth above].”

You have failed to meet these Rule 61 standards. Your motion for postconviction relief and your motion for appointment of counsel are procedurally

barred. Therefore, both of your Rule 61 motions must be DENIED as procedurally barred.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, Cory bnaoen Craig A. Karsnitz

cc: Prothonotary’s Office Department of Justice

03 Xa5SNS 10ud GA ld

il

ALG AYVLOROH

EO 01 'V S- AGN bit?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Majette, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-majette-delsuperct-2019.