Whitehurst v. State
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IZZY L. WHITEHURST, § §
Defendant Below, § No. 127, 2022 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware §
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1110014096 (N)
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: April 25, 2022 Decided: June 2, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, the record on appeal, and the appellant’s “Motion to Amend; Retract” and
“Motion to Retract Opening Brief,” we conclude that the judgment below should be
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated March 30, 2022, denying
the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred. The
appellant has not pleaded any circumstances under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (d)(2)(ii) that
overcome the procedural bars set forth in Rule 61,1 nor does he claim that the
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.2
1 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i).
2 Id. R. 61(i)(5).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Whitehurst v. State (Whitehurst v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.