Murray v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANDRE MURRAY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 41, 2021 Court Below–Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 1710007866 (N) Submitted: May 26, 2021 Decided: July 30, 2021 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR 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 find it evident that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Superior Court’s December 22, 2020 order denying the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.1 Because the Superior Court had already ruled on the appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, it correctly denied as moot the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended motion for postconviction relief. And absent 1 State v. Murray, 2020 WL 7624853 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2020). plain error—which we do not find here—we will not consider the arguments that the appellant makes for the first time on appeal.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/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice 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.”). 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.