Santiago v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DENNIS SANTIAGO, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 483, 2000 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN-89-02-1021 and 1023, and IN89-02-0344 Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 13, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 13th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the parties briefs, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Dennis Santiago, pled guilty in 1989 to first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two weapon offenses. The Superior Court sentenced Santiago to life imprisonment plus twenty years. Santiago did not appeal his convictions or sentences. In 1992, Santiago filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court summarily denied. This Court affirmed that decision on appeal.1 In 1995, Santiago unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief. In March 2000, he filed a second motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied. Santiago voluntarily dismissed his appeal from that order. In September 2000, he once again filed a motion for state postconviction relief. This is Santiago s appeal from the Superior Court s denial of that motion. (2) Having carefully considered the parties respective positions, we find it manifest that the judgment should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated September 19, 2000. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that all of the Santiago s claims were procedurally barred as repetitive and/or untimely2 and that his claims did not fall within any of the exceptions to the procedural bars under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court s summary disposition of Santiago s claims without holding a hearing.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 1 Santiago v. State, No. 539, 1992, Holland, J. (Apr. 21, 1993) (ORDER). See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1), (2). 3 See Maxion v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 148, 11 (1996). 2 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.
