State of Delaware v. Hunter.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, : : : : : : : : : v. BRIAN HUNTER, Defendant. Submitted: Decided: C.r. ID: 9711008238 Cr. A. No. IN97-12-0413R1 Cr. A. No. IN97-12-0414R1 Cr. A. No. IN97-12-0415R1 February 25, 2004 March 5, 2004 ORDER On this 5th day of March 2004 , upon consideration of defendant s pro se reconsideration motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, it appears that: (1) The defendant was convicted of Possession With Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine Within 1000 Feet of a School and Possession of Cocaine Within 500 Feet of a Park and sentenced on March 16, 2001. (2) The defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief in the above captioned case on January 2, 2002. The motion asserted three grounds for relief: (a) an illegal arrest; (b) an illegal search and seizure; and (c) ineffective assistance of counsel (3) This Court denied defendant s motion on July 1, 2002.1 (4) In defendant s present motion for reconsideration he raises the same arguments as previously made. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (i)(2) states [a]ny ground for relief that was 1 State v. Hunter, Del. Super., C.A. Nos. IN97-12-0413R1, IN97-12-0414R1, IN97-12-0415R1, Del Pesco, J. (July 1, 2003) (Order). Cr. ID. 9711008238 March 5, 2004 Page Two not asserted in a prior postconviction proceeding, as required by subdivison (b)(2) of this rule, is thereafter barred, unless consideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice. 2 (4) There is no showing that interests of justice require further review. (5) For the above reasons, the motion for reconsideration of postconviction relief is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________________________________ Judge Susan C. Del Pesco Original to Prothonotary xc: Stuart Sklut, Esq., Deputy Attorney General Brian Hunter, Pro Se 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (i)(2). See also State v. Cannon, 2000 Del. Super. LEXIS 340.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
