State v. Roy
This text of State v. Roy (State v. Roy) 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. ) ID No. 1003021785 ) RASHID ROY, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER
This 4th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant Rashid Roy’s
(“Defendant”) pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Motion”),1 it appears
to the Court that:
1. On April 7, 2011, Defendant was found guilty after a trial by jury and
convicted of Murder First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the
Commission of a Felony, Assault Third Degree, and Terroristic Threatening.2
2. On September 9, 2011, Defendant was sentenced to Level V for the balance
of his natural life, plus 11 years, followed by decreasing levels of probation.3
3. Defendant’s Motion is a third motion for postconviction relief pursuant to
Delaware Superior Court Rule 61 (“Rule 61”). Defendant filed his second Rule 61
motion on March 9, 2016, which was summarily dismissed.4
1 D.I. 157. 2 D.I. 79. 3 D.I. 88. 4 D.I. 150. 4. Rule 61(d) explicitly bars successive motions and states that no second or
subsequent postconviction motion is permitted 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.
5. Defendant asserts three grounds for relief, none of which assert actual
innocence on the basis of new evidence or new retroactively applicable law.
Therefore, Defendant's claims are procedurally barred.5
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is
SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________ _________ Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge
Original to Prothonotary cc: Rashid Roy (SBI #00302387)
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R.61(d)(2). 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Roy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roy-delsuperct-2023.