Opinion
No. 330, 2001
Decided: January 7, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN97-05-1386, -1388, and -1391
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
GARY RILEY, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 330, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: January 7, 2002
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN97-05-1386, -1388, and -1391
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices.
Randy J. Holland, Justice:
ORDER
This 7th day of January 2002, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Gary Riley, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's order denying his first petition for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to Riley's contentions. Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(2) The record reflects that a Superior Court jury found Riley guilty in May 1998 of trafficking, maintaining a vehicle for the distribution of drugs, and resisting arrest. The Superior Court sentenced Riley on all charges to a total of fifteen years at Level V imprisonment followed by two years of decreasing levels of supervision. This Court affirmed Riley's convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
Riley v. State, No. 103, 1999 (Del. Feb. 25, 2000) (ORDER).
(3) Thereafter, Riley, through his counsel, filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Flowers hearing in order to discover the identity of a confidential informant who provided information used to establish probable cause for a search warrant; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the search warrant on staleness grounds. The Superior Court, in a thorough decision dated June 27, 2001, rejected Riley's contentions on the merits.
State v. Flowers, 316 A.2d 564 (Del.Super.Ct. 1973).
(4) In his opening brief on appeal, which was filed pro se, Riley contends that the Superior Court "may have abused its discretion" and "may have had a closed mind" in summarily dismissing his Rule 61 petition, which Riley contends "was filed incomplete by counsel." Having carefully considered the parties' respective briefs and the record below, we find no factual support for Riley's contention that the Superior Court denied his petition based on incomplete information. The record reflects that Riley's counsel filed a two-sided petition with the Superior Court. Although Riley may not have received a complete copy of the petition, the Superior Court did. Thus, we find no support for Riley's assertion that the Superior Court misunderstood his arguments. Moreover, we find that the Superior Court did not err in concluding that Riley's claims lacked substantive merit. It is manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision dated June 27, 2001.
There was no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's summary disposition of Riley's claims without holding a hearing.
See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 11 (Del. 1996).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.