merits of any claim (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

merits of any claim in Delaware

13 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Younger v. Stategreen
del · 1990 · cited in 9 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024
2 sentences

2023Defendant was found guilty but mentally ill, but he was not adjudicated incompetent. 20 D.I. 97. 3 He states that he was never informed of his appellate rights or his right to file a postconviction motion and asks the Court to appoint counsel to assist him in this matter.21 (7) In his Motion to Compel, Defendant asks the Court to compel the Office of Defense Services to provide him with “access to his trial evidence and transcripts” for the purpose of filing a motion for postconviction relief.22 Defendant again alleges that he has been “denied access to all his case materials and access to all

2019That is, Davenport theorizes that it was illogical for the Superior Court to find both that trial counsel had failed to raise objections, thereby concluding that his claims were procedurally barred, and, 4 Urquhart v. State, 203 A.3d 719, 726 (Del. 2019). 5 Id.; Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015). 6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 3 at the same time, find that trial counsel raised appropriate objections in support of its conclusion that his claims were barred as previously adjudicated. (7) Postconviction relief is a collateral remedy that provides an avenue to ch

89
Bailey v. Stategreen
del · 1991 · cited in 4 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017
2 sentences

2017Before addressing the merits of any claim for post-conviction relief, this Court first must determine whether the motion procedurally is barred under Rule 61.6 A motion for post-conviction relief is barred if it is untimely, repetitive, or procedurally improper, or if it formerly was adjudicated7 5 D.i. 42 at 2-4. 6 See Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (Del. 1991); Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 , 554 $Del. 1990).

2017Before addressing the merits of any claim for postconviction relief, this Court first must determine whether the motion procedurally is barred under Rule 61.25 A motion for postconviction relief is barred if it is untimely, repetitive, or procedurally improper, or if it formerly was adjudicated.26 A motion filed under Rule 61 is untimely if it is filed more than one year after a final judgment of conviction.27 A defendant also is barred from filing successive motions for postconviction relief.28 The rule further prohibits motions based on any ground for relief that was not asserted in the proc

44
Riley v. Stategreen
del · 1990 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Except in exceedingly limited circumstances, the failure to meet those requirements bars any further consideration of the petitioner’s claims.”). 32 White I, 2018 WL 6167326 , at *1-2. 33 Riley v. State, 585 A.2d 719, 721 (Del. 1990); State v. Madison, 2018 WL 1935966 , at *4-5 (Del.

11
Ayers v. Stategreen
del · 2002 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Accordingly, Rule 61’s procedural bars must be considered before the merits of any claim.”) (internal citations omitted); Ayers v. State, 802 A.2d 278, 281 (Del. 2002) (“Before examining the merits of any Motion for Postconviction Relief, our courts must first apply the rules governing the procedural requirements for relief set forth in Rule 61.

11
Starling v. Stategreen
del · 2015 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019That is, Davenport theorizes that it was illogical for the Superior Court to find both that trial counsel had failed to raise objections, thereby concluding that his claims were procedurally barred, and, 4 Urquhart v. State, 203 A.3d 719, 726 (Del. 2019). 5 Id.; Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015). 6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 3 at the same time, find that trial counsel raised appropriate objections in support of its conclusion that his claims were barred as previously adjudicated. (7) Postconviction relief is a collateral remedy that provides an avenue to ch

11
Urquhart v. Stategreen
del · 2019 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019That is, Davenport theorizes that it was illogical for the Superior Court to find both that trial counsel had failed to raise objections, thereby concluding that his claims were procedurally barred, and, 4 Urquhart v. State, 203 A.3d 719, 726 (Del. 2019). 5 Id.; Starling v. State, 130 A.3d 316, 325 (Del. 2015). 6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 3 at the same time, find that trial counsel raised appropriate objections in support of its conclusion that his claims were barred as previously adjudicated. (7) Postconviction relief is a collateral remedy that provides an avenue to ch

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Whittle v. State green
del · 2016
1 sentence

2017Rule 6l(d) permits a second or subsequent 6 D.i. 93. 7 Whittle v. State, 138 A.3d 1149 (Del. 2016). 8 Whittle also filed a “Motion for Recusal” directed to the Assigned Judge.

12017–2017
Naughton v. State neutral
del · 2015
1 sentence

2016A motion filed under Rule 61 is untimely if it is 11 Naugh¢on v. sze, 2015 WL 9434546 , at *i (Dei.

12016–2016

Where else courts name it

PA 76 (1979–2026) OH 28 (1999–2025) CA 19 (1955–2025) TX 17 (1970–2025) DE 13 (2014–2024) IL 10 (1958–2025) TN 7 (2010–2024) AZ 6 (1961–2025) FL 6 (1983–2018) CT 4 (2004–2019) NM 4 (1914–1996) LA 4 (1975–2014) NY 3 (1919–2017) DC 3 (1992–2015) IA 3 (2016–2016) GA 3 (1990–2021) MA 3 (1974–2003) NJ 3 (1999–2008) NV 2 (2025–2025) MI 2 (2022–2024) CO 2 (2005–2018) HI 2 (2003–2023) MD 2 (2002–2004) VA 2 (2025–2025) WV 2 (2008–2009) NC 2 (2017–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check