Ortiz v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CARLOS ORTIZ, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 301, 2018 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID S0208005710 Submitted: August 13, 2018 Decided: August 31, 2018 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER The Court has carefully considered the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm,1 and the record on appeal. We find it clear that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision dated May 18, 2018. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s ninth motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the appellant had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles. Contrary to the 1 The appellant’s request to respond to the motion to affirm is denied. appellant’s argument, he had no retroactive constitutional right to counsel to represent him in pursuing his first motion for postconviction relief.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice 2 Bunting v. State, 2015 WL 2147188 (Del. May 5, 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.