Wright v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FRANKLIN R. WRIGHT, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 40, 2020 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1607007843 (N) Submitted: July 31, 2020 Decided: October 2, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned January 13, 2020 order denying the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.1 To the extent that the appellant argues that his sentence is illegal, we will not consider this argument for the first time on appeal,2 and—as the appellant acknowledges—he may file a motion 1 State v. Wright, 2020 WL 218424 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 13, 2020). Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may consider and determine any question not so presented.”); Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. 2 to correct an illegal sentence with the Superior Court under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a) “at any time.”3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenant of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court.”). 3 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a). 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.
