Robles v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
THOMAS ROBLES, §
§ No. 263, 2023
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1601002267 (N)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: November 22, 2023
Decided: February 5, 2024
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to
affirm, and the record on appeal, we affirm the Superior Court’s order denying the
appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief. The appellant’s motion, filed six
years after his convictions became final, was procedurally barred as untimely filed.1
And, contrary to his claims on appeal, neither the appellant’s co-defendant’s
purported recantation nor the appellant’s mental health treatment records constitutes
new evidence that the appellant is actually innocent of the crimes to which he
1
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty.2 Under the circumstances
presented here, we also find that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when
it denied the appellant’s motions for transcripts and discovery.3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
See Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997) (“In the absence of clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary, [a defendant] is bound by his answers on the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty
Plea Form and by his sworn testimony prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea.”).
3
See Miller v. State, 2008 WL 623236, at *2 (Del. Mar. 7, 2008) (observing that an indigent
defendant does not have an absolute right to transcripts prepared at State expense in postconviction
proceedings).
2