Payne v. State ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALONZO J. PAYNE, §
§ No. 430, 2018
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID S1308012898A
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 19, 2018
Decided: November 15, 2018
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, and the record below, the Court concludes that the judgment below
should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision
dated August 13, 2018. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the
appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred
and that the motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)
in order to overcome the procedural hurdles.1
1
To the extent the appellant’s opening brief argues that the Superior Court erred in denying
his first motion for postconviction relief, we do not consider his claim because Payne did
not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment with the Clerk of this Court, as
required by Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iv) and 10(a). Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 484 (Del.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
2012) (holding that Delaware statutes and rules preclude adoption of the federal “mailbox
rule”).
2