IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BENJAMIN WALLS, III, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 213, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0303007019
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 7, 2016
Decided: August 1, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of August 2016, after careful consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court
concludes that the April 12, 2016 order of the Superior Court dismissing the
appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed. The motion
was subject to summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 because
it was the appellant’s sixth motion for postconviction relief and the appellant failed
to plead with particularity the existence of new evidence that created a strong
inference of actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that was
retroactively applicable.1 This is Walls’ sixth unsuccessful motion for
postconviction relief. We will not continue to invest scarce judicial resources to
address untimely and repetitive claims. We encourage Walls to be mindful of Rule
61(j).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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
1
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
2
Super. Ct. R. 61(j) (“If a motion is denied, the state may move for an order requiring the
movant to reimburse the state for costs and expenses paid for the movant from public funds.”).
2