Desmond v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 573, 2018 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 91009844DI (N) Submitted: January 9, 2019 Decided: February 8, 2019 Corrected: February 12, 2019 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 13, 2018, the appellant, Christopher R. Desmond, filed a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for reduction/modification of sentence. Based on his filing of a number of unsuccessful motions and petitions challenging his 1992 convictions, this Court previously directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filings from Desmond unless the filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion was granted by the Court.1 Desmond filed an incomplete and un-notarized motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his notice of appeal. (2) The Senior Court Clerk directed Desmond to provide a completed and notarized motion by November 29, 2018. Desmond failed to do so. On December 31, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk directed Desmond to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to proceed in forma pauperis as directed. On January 9, 2019, Desmond filed his response to the notice to show cause. (3) Although it is not entirely clear, Desmond seems to argue that members of the Court have been found to be appointed unconstitutionally. Desmond does not address his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to proceed in forma pauperis as directed by the Court. Nor has he paid the filing fee. Under these circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 1 Desmond v. Biden, 2015 WL 631582, at *3 (Del. Feb. 11, 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.
