Pumphrey v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ELTON L. PUMPHREY, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 580, 2006 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID 0002014519 Submitted: August 10, 2007 Decided: October 23, 2007 Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of October 2007, after careful consideration of the parties briefs and record on appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated October 17, 2006. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that appellant lacked standing to pursue a motion for postconviction relief because appellant had completed his sentence and thus was no longer in custody or subject to future custody under the sentence for which postconviction relief was sought.1 Moreover, given his lengthy criminal record, Pumphrey could not establish that he would suffer any collateral consequences as a result of the convictions he sought to challenge in his motion.2 Accordingly, his motion for postconviction relief was moot. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1), which provides that a motion for postconviction relief may only be brought by a person in custody or subject to future custody under a sentence of the Superior Court. 2 Gural v. State, 251 A.2d 344, 344-45 (Del. 1969). 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.
