Harden v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WALLACE E. HARDEN, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 293, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 9510018718 Submitted: July 10, 2002 Decided: August 12, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 12th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the opening brief and the State s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Wallace Harden, was convicted in 1996 of first degree unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of second degree unlawful sexual contact involving his minor daughters. This Court affirmed Harden s convictions on appeal.1 In his first motion for postconviction relief, Harden argued, in part, that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over his offenses because Harden s victims were his daughters and only Family Court has jurisdiction over the crime of incest. 1 Harden v. State, Del. Supr., No. 107, 1997, Holland, J. (May 29, 1998). The Superior Court denied Harden s motion, and this Court affirmed that decision.2 Harden filed a second motion for postconviction relief, again alleging that Family Court, and not the Superior Court, had jurisdiction over his offenses. The Superior Court summarily denied Harden s motion. This appeal ensued. (2) Having carefully considered the parties= respective contentions and the record below, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated May 15, 2002. Harden s motion clearly was untimely.3 Moreover, the argument raised in Harden s motion, although refined, was previously adjudicated in his first postconviction motion.4 The Superior Court, therefore, did not err in concluding that Harden s claim was procedurally barred. 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/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 2 Harden v. State, Del. Supr., No. 75, 2001, Walsh, J. (June 28, 2001). 3 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1). 4 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(4). 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.
