Payne v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALONZO J. PAYNE, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 430, 2018 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID S1308012898A Submitted: September 19, 2018 Decided: November 15, 2018 Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant’s 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 August 13, 2018. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the motion failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) in order to overcome the procedural hurdles.1 To the extent the appellant’s opening brief argues that the Superior Court erred in denying his first motion for postconviction relief, we do not consider his claim because Payne did not file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment with the Clerk of this Court, as required by Supreme Court Rules 6(a)(iv) and 10(a). Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 484 (Del. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. Justice 2012) (holding that Delaware statutes and rules preclude adoption of the federal “mailbox rule”). 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.