Sanders v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES B. SANDERS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 260, 2016 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 9312012607 Submitted: June 22, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 1st day of August 2016, upon consideration of appellant Charles Sanders’ opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated May 20, 2016. The Superior Court did not err in dismissing Sanders’ amended eighth motion for postconviction relief because the motion was procedurally barred and failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). Moreover, we note that this Court previously enjoined Sanders from filing any future appeals or petitions relating to his 1994 convictions unless he first made the required certifications under 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and was granted leave of the Court to proceed in forma pauperis.1 In this case, Sanders’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis omitted the sworn certification that he previously had been found by a Delaware court to have engaged in factual or legally frivolous litigation and had been enjoined from future filings. Although his in forma pauperis motion was granted on June 30, 2016, we now hold that that order was improvidently issued. Thus, that order is RESCINDED and Sanders’ in forma pauperis status is hereby REVOKED. The prior injunction remains in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this Court’s June 30, 2016 order granting Sanders’ in forma pauperis status is hereby RESCINDED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 1 See Sanders v. State, 2015 WL 3766447, at *2 (Del. June 12, 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.
