Maymi v. State ( 2017 )

,IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ENRIQUE MAYMI, §
§ No. 40, 2017
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 87001255DI
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: May 1, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of May 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The appellant, Enrique Maymi, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his second motion for postconviction relief. The State has filed a
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face
of Maymi’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) In December 1987, a Superior Court jury convicted Maymi and his
codefendant, Carmelo Claudio, of Murder in the First Degree. The Superior Court
sentenced Maymi to life imprisonment. This Court upheld his conviction and
sentence on direct appeal.1 In 2007, Maymi filed his first motion for
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Superior Court
appointed counsel to represent Maymi, and appointed counsel filed an amended
motion for postconviction relief in March 2008. The Superior Court denied his
motion.2 This Court affirmed on appeal.3
(3) Maymi filed his second Rule 61 motion in May 2016. The Superior
Court referred Maymi’s motion to a commissioner, who issued a report on October
3, 2016, recommending that Maymi’s motion be denied as both untimely and
repetitive. On December 21, 2016, after conducting a de novo review, a judge of
the Superior Court adopted the commissioner’s report and recommendation and
denied Maymi’s motion. This appeal followed.
(4) After careful consideration of the opening brief and the State’s motion
to affirm, it is clear that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of,
and for the reasons assigned by, the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision
dated December 21, 2016. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that
Maymi’s second motion for postconviction relief was untimely and repetitive and
that Maymi had failed to overcome these procedural hurdles. Maymi’s contention
1
Claudio v. State, 585 A.2d 1278 (Del. 1991).
2
State v. Claudio, 2008 WL 853799 (Del. Super. Apr. 1, 2008).
3
Claudio v. State, 958 A.2d 846 (Del. 2008).
2
that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel to pursue his second motion
under Rule 61 is simply incorrect.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
4
Gibbs v. State, 2015 WL 3843378 (Del. June 18, 2015).
3