Summary
rejecting claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction as a result of deficiencies in the indictment
Summary of this case from Samuel v. StateOpinion
No. 360, 2019
02-05-2020
Sylvester MILLER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the State's motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court's order, dated July 19, 2019, summarily dismissing the appellant's fifth motion for postconviction relief. The appellant has not pleaded with particularity new evidence of actual innocence or that a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law renders his conviction invalid. Moreover, the appellant's claims that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because of deficiencies in the indictment have been previously rejected and otherwise fail on the merits.
Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R . 61(d)(2).
Id. R. 61(i)(5).
State v. Miller , 2018 WL 2085226 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 24, 2018) (Commissioner's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Fourth Motion for Postconviction Relief); State v. Miller , Cr. I.D. No. 0408012099, Docket Entry No. 103 (Del. Super. Ct. May 29, 2018) (adopting Commissioner's report).
See, e.g. , Fountain v. State , 288 A.2d 277, 278-79 (Del. 1972) (holding that failure to allege an essential fact in an information did not constitute a jurisdictional defect).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.