Martinez v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE OSCAR MARTINEZ, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 623, 2015 Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 0905009708 Submitted: January 7, 2016 Decided: February 23, 2016 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of February 2016, after careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the October 23, 2015 order of the Superior Court dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed. The motion was subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 because it was the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief after he pled guilty.1 The appellant also failed to plead with particularity the 1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that second or subsequent motion for postconviction relief shall be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after trial and pleads with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant is actually innocent or a claim that a new rule of constitutional law is retroactively applicable and renders the conviction invalid). existence of new evidence that created a strong inference of actual innocence2 or a new rule of constitutional law that was retroactively applicable.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 2 3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(i). Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(ii). 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.
