Thomas v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JEFFREY W. THOMAS, § § No. 384, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 1403008516 (K) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 11, 2024 Decided: December 5, 2024

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After considering the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm,

and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s order dismissing the

appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief. The motion was subject to

summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 because the appellant,

Jeffrey Thomas, failed to plead new evidence of his actual innocence or that a new

rule of constitutional law made retroactive to his case renders his conviction invalid.1

We review for plain error Thomas’s argument on appeal that he was denied his

1 Del. Super. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief must be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after a trial and pleads with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent or that a new rule of constitutional law is retroactively applicable and renders his conviction invalid). constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his first

motion for postconviction relief because he did not raise it below.2 There is no plain

error here.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 3 See Roten v. State, 2013 WL 5808236, at *1 (Del. Oct. 28, 2013) (rejecting the appellant’s argument that the Superior Court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with his initial postconviction proceedings violated his state and federal constitutional rights). 2