Coles v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID COLES, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 117, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0301011099 Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: June 12, 2013 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices ORDER This 12th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, David Coles, filed an appeal from the Superior Court s February 29, 2012 order adopting the July 14, 2011 report of the Superior Court Commissioner, which recommended that Coles first motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 be denied.1 For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Superior Court s judgment must be reversed and the matter remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with this Order. 1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. (2) On January 18, 2013, Coles appeal was stayed pending this Court s decision in Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 350, 2012, which concerned the issue of the appointment of counsel in an indigent movant s first postconviction proceeding. By order dated May 6, 2013, the Superior Court amended Rule 61 of its Rules of Criminal Procedure to provide that the Superior Court would appoint counsel for an indigent movant s first postconviction proceeding. The amended Rule further specified that it shall be effective on May 6, 2013 and shall apply to postconviction motions filed on or after that date. On May 23, 2013, this Court issued its decision in Holmes v. State, reversing the June 7, 2012 order of the Superior Court, which denied Holmes motion for postconviction relief. (3) Although Coles filed his Rule 61 motion before the effective date of the Superior Court s Rule 61 amendment, we reach the same result as if the amended Rule were applicable to his case. We conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, Coles should have been appointed counsel in connection with his first postconviction motion.2 Because we reverse and remand to the Superior Court for the appointment of counsel for Coles in connection with his first postconviction motion, we decline to address the merits of Coles Rule 61 motion in this appeal. 2 Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 350, 2012, Jacobs, J. (May 23, 2013). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court s February 29, 2012 order denying Coles motion for postconviction relief is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this Order. Jurisdiction is not retained. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 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.
