IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES ST. LOUIS, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 519, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 0009015005
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 28, 2017
Decided: May 9, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of May 2017, after careful consideration of appellant James St.
Louis’ opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, we find
it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior
Court’s well-reasoned decision dated October 5, 2016.1 The Superior Court did not
err in summarily dismissing St. Louis’ seventh postconviction motion under
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). St. Louis did not plead with particularity
the existence of new evidence creating a strong inference that he was actually
1
State v. St. Louis, 2016 WL 5864584 (Del. Oct. 5, 2016).
innocent of the underlying charges2 or plead with particularity a claim that a new
rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review, applied to
his case and rendered his convictions invalid.3 As a result of his failure to satisfy
Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii), St. Louis was not entitled to appointment of counsel or a
hearing.4
In our November 24, 2014 order affirming the Superior Court’s summary
dismissal of St. Louis’ sixth motion for postconviction relief, we warned St. Louis
that we would not address repetitive claims.5 We also cautioned St. Louis to be
mindful of Rule 61(j).6 Despite these warnings, St. Louis filed this appeal, which is
again based on a motion for postconviction relief that fails to satisfy Rule 61(d)(2).
We conclude that St. Louis’ untimely, repetitive, and frivolous filings constitute an
abuse of the judicial process. In the future, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
refuse any filings from St. Louis relating to his 2001 convictions and sentences
unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to
proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the certifications
required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that motion is granted by the Court. 7
2
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i).
3
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(ii).
4
Super. Ct. R. 61(e)(4) (judge may appoint counsel for indigent defendant’s second or subsequent
postconviction motion only if judge determines that motion satisfies pleading requirements of Rule
61(d)(2)(i) or (ii)).
5
St. Louis v. State, 2014 WL 7042290, at *1 (Del. Nov. 24, 2014).
6
Id.
7
10 Del. C. § 8803(e) provides:
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED
and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. St. Louis is ENJOINED
under 10 Del. C. § 8803 and this Order from filing a future notice of appeal or
extraordinary writ concerning his 2001 convictions and sentences without first
obtaining the Court’s permission.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
When a court finds that a litigant has abused the judicial process by filing frivolous or
malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future claims without
leave of court. When so enjoined, any future requests to file claims must be accompanied
by an affidavit certifying that:
(1) The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of before in
any court;
(2) The facts alleged are true and correct;
(3) The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant
case law controls the legal issues raised;
(4) The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlled law;
and
(5) The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.
3