McNeil v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NATHAN MCNEIL, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 466, 2019 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1302010193 (K) Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: January 16, 2020 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, 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 judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned order, dated October 30, 2019, summarily dismissing the appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. The Superior Court did not err in determining that the motion failed to satisfy the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) and was procedurally barred.1 1 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 either” 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). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice 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.