Bradley v. State ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RAYMOND E. BRADLEY, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 310, 2017
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 92S05720DI (S)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: December 1, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of December 2017, after careful consideration of the opening
brief, the motion to affirm, and the record below, we conclude that the July 12, 2017
Superior Court order denying the appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief
and motion for appointment of counsel under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
should be affirmed. The appellant’s restatement of his previous ineffective
assistance of counsel claims and contention that his sexual relationship with the
murder victim’s girlfriend began when he was underage do not constitute “new
evidence” creating “a strong inference” that he “is actually innocent in fact of the
acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted.”1 We also note that this is
the appellant’s fourth postconviction motion. We will not continue to invest scare
judicial resources to address untimely claims. We encourage the appellant to be
mindful of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(j).2
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/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
Super. Ct. Crim. 61(d)(2)(i) (providing second or subsequent motion for motion postconviction
relief is not subject to summary dismissal if the movant satisfies this standard).
2
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).
2