Gibbs v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRYANT GIBBS, § § § § § § § § § § § Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 55, 2017 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID. No. 30900498DI (N) Submitted: May 22, 2017 Decided: July 14, 2017 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of July 2017, after careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, we find it evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s wellreasoned order, dated January 12, 2017, denying the appellant’s fifth motion for postconviction relief under Rule 61.1 We decline to consider arguments the appellant raises for the first time on appeal.2 1 State v. Gibbs, 2017 WL 129116 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2017). Supr. Ct. R. 8. The appellant argues for the first time on appeal that Rule 61 is unconstitutional. The Court has previously rejected similar arguments. See, e.g., Boyer v. State, 562 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Del. 1989) (holding adoption of time limitations in Rule 61 did not deprive the appellant of due process). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice 2

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.