Caulk v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT CAULK, §
§ No. 233, 2021
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below–Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID Nos. N1705002474
Plaintiff Below, § N1705004722
Appellee. §
Submitted: December 3, 2021
Decided: February 2, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below—which
includes both trial counsel’s affidavit filed in response to the appellant’s allegations
of ineffective assistance of counsel and the Superior Court sentencing transcript—
we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the
reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its June 29, 2021 order denying the
appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief.1 Absent plain error, which we do
1
State v. Caulk, 2021 WL 2662250 (Del. Super. Ct. June 29, 2021).
not find here, we decline to consider the arguments that the appellant raises for the
first time on appeal.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
2
Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for
review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider
and determine any question not so presented.”).