Clark, et al. v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWARD CLARK, et al. § § § § § § § § § Defendants Below-Appellants, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. Submitted: Decided: No. 218, 2015 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County November 18, 2015 November 18, 2015 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of November 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) In this appeal, defendants who knowingly and freely pled guilty to crimes involving the possession of illegal substances again challenge their convictions by pointing to the investigation at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. As the Superior Court properly found, each of the defendants’ petitions is procedurally barred under Rule 61.1 (2) Not only that, the defendants’ belated challenge to the propriety of the new form of Rule 61 is without merit because, as we noted in Turnage v. State2 when rejecting 1 2 Clark v. State, C.A. No. 0912006119 (Del. Super. Apr. 10, 2015). 2015 WL 6746644, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015). an identical challenge, i) states need not even provide any form of post-conviction relief,3 and ii) the amended Rule 61 provides not only an opportunity for first review, but allows for a second petition in compelling circumstances, such as when a defendant has been convicted after trial and new evidence emerges of actual innocence.4 Here, the defendants do not even contend that they were wrongly convicted or that they pled falsely when they admitted their actual guilt. Thus, even if they were not procedurally barred, their petitions are without merit on the basis of our decisions in, among other cases, Ira Brown v. State,5 Anzara Brown v. State,6 and Aricidiacono v. State.7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment of dismissal of April 10, 2015 is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 3 See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 89 (2009) (“States are under no obligation to provide mechanisms for postconviction relief . . . .”); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (“States have no obligation to provide [post-conviction] relief . . . .”). 4 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (“A second or subsequent motion under this rule shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion either: (i) pleads with particularity that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent . . . ; or (ii) pleads with particularity a new rule of constitutional law . . . applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.”). 5 108 A.3d 1201, 1205–06 (Del. 2015). 6 117 A.3d 568, 581 (Del. 2015). 7 __ A.3d __, 2015 WL 5933984, at *3–4 (Del. Oct. 12, 2015); see also State v. Jones, 2015 WL 6746873, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015); Turnage, 2015 WL 6746644, at *2; Brewer v. State, 2015 WL 4606541, at *2–3 (Del. July 30, 2015); McMillan v. State, 2015 WL 3444673, at *2 (Del. May 27, 2015); Patrick L. Brown v. State, 2015 WL 3372271, at *2 (Del. May 22, 2015); Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940, at *2 (Del. May 21, 2015). 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.
