Shah v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KUSHAL SHAH f/k/a GERRON M. § LINDSEY, § § Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § No. 154, 2019 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 0002019767 (N) Submitted: June 10, 2019 Decided: July 12, 2019 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s order,1 dated March 7, 2019, adopting the Commissioner’s report and recommendation,2 dated December 5, 2018, and denying Shah’s twelfth motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed. Shah was not convicted after trial and did 1 2 State v. Shah, 2019 WL 1077274 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2019). State v. Shah, 2018 WL 6432979 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2018). not satisfy the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2).3 The Superior Court did not err in denying Shah relief. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant was actually innocent or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review). 3 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.