Kirk v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MARK KIRK, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 17, 2020 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 9612002650 (N) Submitted: March 11, 2020 Decided: April 24, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of its December 16, 2019 order, adopting the commissioner’s well-reasoned order recommending that the appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief be summarily dismissed. As the commissioner correctly noted, the appellant’s claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction1 is procedurally barred as having been previously adjudicated.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice 1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). Del. Super Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4); Kirk v. State, 2005 WL 3526325, at *2 (Del. Dec. 23, 2005) (rejecting Kirk’s claim that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to reduce Kirk’s convictions to lesser-included offenses in light of our holding in Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2003), and explicitly finding that the Superior Court did not violate any of Kirk’s constitutional rights in doing so). 2 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.
