Deputy v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Kenneth T. Deputy’s fifth motion for postconviction relief. The Court held that Deputy’s claims were procedurally barred under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and that he had not established an applicable interest-of-justice or miscarriage-of-justice exception.

Holdings

1. The fifth postconviction motion was properly dismissed because all of Deputy's claims had previously been raised and rejected, making them barred under Rule 61(i)(4), in addition to the other procedural bars applied by the Superior Court.
2. Deputy's vague references to later problems involving drug evidence and his conclusory, unsupported assertions of actual innocence did not satisfy the interest-of-justice exception or establish a colorable miscarriage-of-justice claim.
3. The Superior Court properly denied Deputy's requests for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing as moot after dismissing the motion and properly denied his request for transcripts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court properly dismissed Deputy's fifth Rule 61 motion as procedurally barred.
2. Whether Deputy established an interest-of-justice or miscarriage-of-justice exception to the Rule 61 procedural bars based on alleged recent drug-evidence problems and conclusory assertions of actual innocence.
3. Whether the Superior Court properly denied Deputy's requests for appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and transcripts.

Disposition

affirmed