Hainey v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JASON A. HAINEY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 498, 2018 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 0306015699 (N) Submitted: November 13, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018 Before VALIHURA, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, 1 and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s order, dated August 23, 2018, adopting the Commissioner’s report and recommendations, dated July 13, 2018. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and did not satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). The Court declines to 1 On November 26, 2018, the appellant filed a motion for leave to respond to the motion to affirm. Under Supreme Court Rule 25(a), a response to a motion to affirm is not permitted unless requested by the Court. The Court did not request a response to the motion to affirm and finds no reason to request a response after considering the appellant’s motion. address the appellant’s confrontation clause argument because he did not raise it in the Superior Court.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice 2 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 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.
