Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Desmond

Superior Court of Delaware

July 10, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, Defendant

          Submitted: June 12, 2018

         On Defendant's Eleventh Motion for Postconviction Relief. SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

         On Defendant's Motion to Amend. DENIED

         On Defendant's "Motion For Recuse." DENIED

          Gregory E. Smith, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

          Christopher R. Desmond, James T. Vaughn Correctional Institution, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.

          ORDER

          RICHARD R. COOCH, J.

         This 10th day of July 2018, upon consideration of Defendant's Eleventh Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant was convicted in November 1992 of Robbery First Degree and related crimes. The factual and procedural history of both the case and the "plethora" of subsequent postconviction actions are incorporated by reference from the Court's opinion issued January 5, 2011.[1] For an overview of Defendant's first six motions for postconviction relief, see State v. Desmond, 2011 WL 91984 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2011). In that opinion, the Court procedurally barred Defendant's seventh motion for postconviction relief by determining that Defendant's claims were not asserted in prior proceedings or were previously adjudicated.[2]
2. Subsequently, this Court summarily dismissed Defendant's eighth motion for postconviction relief on March 7, 2012, finding that Defendant's eighth motion was procedurally barred.[3] The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on August 9, 2012.[4]
3. On February 26, 2013, this Court denied Defendant's ninth motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred as untimely and repetitive.[5]As a consequence, Defendant's motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot.
4. In 2014, this Court deemed three filings listed below to be "subsequent motions pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 for Postconviction Relief."[6]
1. October 7, 2013: Motion to Amend Defendant's Correction of Illegal Sentence.
2. October 14, 2013: Motion to Amend Original Dismissal Motion DI29, DI 31 Pursuant [sic] Superior Court Civil Rule 15(c), (d) and Superior Court Criminal Rules of Procedure Rule 57(d).
3. October 14, 2013: Motion to Amend Pursuant to the Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e) and 61(b)(6) Appointment of Counsel for the Unresolved D.I. 64.[7]
As a result, this Court denied the motions (interpreted as the tenth motion for postconviction relief) as repetitive pursuant to Rule 61 (i)(2) and procedurally ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.