State of Delaware v. Chrichlow.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. KEINO CHRICHLOW, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID#: 0611011396 ORDER Upon Defendant s Third Motion for Postconviction Relief SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 1. On March 28, 2012, the court denied Defendant s second motion for postconviction relief. 2. Thereafter, on September 17, 2013, Defendant filed a request for appointment of counsel, which the court denied by order docketed November 14, 2013. 3. Finally, for present purposes, Defendant filed this, his third motion for postconviction relief. After proper referral1 and preliminary consideration,2 it appears the motion is subject to summary dismissal because it is repetitive and previously adjudicated.3 It further appears that Defendant has shown neither cause Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(1). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4). 3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 1 2 nor prejudice overcoming his procedural default.4 And, after further consideration of the record it appears that further review is warranted neither in the interest of justice nor to address an error of Constitutional dimension. 4. Both this court and the Supreme Court of Delaware have written about this case extensively. It stems from an elaborate bank robbery where bank employees and customers were held at gun-point. Defendant was the getaway driver. 5. Defendant s motion focuses on the jury instructions. Defendant, citing Allen v. State,5 alleges the court is required, as a matter of law, to provide a jury instruction on accomplice mental state, pursuant to 11 Del.C. ยง 274. Allen has been addressed before.6 Allen is not retroactive.7 Accordingly, further review based on Allen is not warranted in the interests of justice. 8 6. In his previous motions, Defendant has raised questions about his having been improperly found guilty based on the actual robbers culpability. These points have been addressed. The current claims are almost identical to earlier ones. To the limited extent, if any, the claims have been refined or presented in a slightly different way, they should have been part of Defendant s earlier motions. The rule Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3). 970 A.2d 203. 6 Chrichlow v. State, 49 A.3d 1192, *1 (Del. 2012). 7 Richardson v. State, 3 A.3d 233, 240 (Del. 2010). 8 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 4 5 2 governing postconviction relief practice does not contemplate serial motions where Defendant s claims are fragmented, or the same claims are presented initially and refined through subsequent motion practice.9 7. As mentioned above, the courts have reviewed and re-reviewed Defendant s conviction. With that and Defendant s latest claims in mind, it cannot be said that further review is warranted in the interest of justice, or that Defendant has presented a claim involving a Constitutional error. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s third motion for postconviction relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. Prothonotary SHALL notify Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: oc: pc: 9 May 6, 2014 /s/ Fred S. Silverman Judge Prothonotary, (Criminal Division) Josette D. Manning, Deputy Attorney General Keino S. Chrichlow, Defendant Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 3
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.
