LESTER F. ANDERSON, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Submitted: December 5, 2016
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No.
STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices.
J. Holland Justice.
20th day of January 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:
appellant, Lester F. Anderson, filed this appeal from the
Superior Court's denial of his motion for review of his
case. The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the
judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face
of Anderson's opening brief that his appeal is without
merit. We agree and affirm.
record reflects that a Superior Court jury found Anderson
guilty of Murder in the First Degree in February 1992. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed
Anderson's conviction on direct appeal. In 2013, this
Court denied Anderson's fourth motion for postconviction
August 2016, Anderson filed a motion for review of his case.
The Superior Court treated the motion as a motion for
sentence reduction under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 and
denied it. This appeal followed.
his opening brief, Anderson argues, as he did below, that he
was deprived of his right to call an expert witness at trial
to support his affirmative defense of self-defense. To the
extent Anderson challenges his conviction, Rule 61, not Rule
35, is the exclusive remedy for a person seeking to set aside
a judgment of conviction and Anderson has failed to satisfy the
Rule 61(d)(2) procedural bars.To the extent Anderson seeks to
reduce his sentence, the Superior Court correctly recognized
that it had no authority to reduce his mandatory life
Anderson also claims that the Superior Court erred in not
giving a deadly weapon charge to the jury. Anderson did not
raise this claim in the Superior Court and we will not
consider it for the first time on appeal. Having carefully
considered the parties' positions, we conclude that the
Superior Court did not err in denying Anderson's motion.
note that Anderson unsuccessfully argued the Superior Court
erred in not allowing him to call an expert witness in his
direct appeal. We also note that Anderson has filed
multiple, unsuccessful motions for postconviction
relief. We will not continue to invest scarce
judicial resources to address untimely and repetitive claims.
We encourage the appellant to be mindful of Rule
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is