JAMES ST. LOUIS, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
Submitted October 31, 2014
Motion for Rehearing en Banc filed 12/8/2014; Denied 12/9/2014. Case Closed December 9, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County. Cr. ID No. 0009015005.
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.
Karen L. Valihura, Justice
This 24th day of November 2014, after careful consideration of appellant James St. Louis's opening brief, the appellee's motion to affirm, and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated September 16, 2014. The Superior Court did not err in summarily dismissing James St. Louis's sixth postconviction motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). St. Louis did not plead with particularity the existence of new evidence creating a strong inference that he was actually innocent of the underlying charges or plead with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applied to his case and rendered his conviction invalid. As a result of his failure to satisfy Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii), St. Louis was not entitled to appointment of counsel.
We also note that this is St. Louis's sixth postconviction motion. In the future, if St. Louis files additional motions, we do not intend to invest scare judicial resources addressing repetitive claims. We encourage St. Louis to be mindful of Rule 61(j).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the ...