Maxion v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• providing that the Superior Court must address the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before reaching the merits of any postconviction claims
• “Rule 61(h)(1) grants the Superior Court discretion in determining whether an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion is necessary.”
• “the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain [the defendant’s] untimely motion and properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion.”
• quocing Flamer v. Sraze, 585 A.2d 736, 746 (Del. 1990)
• quonng Flamer v_ s¢a¢e, 585 A.2d 736, 746 (Dei. 1990)
• “If the Superior Court determines in .its discretion that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, such as in [appellant’s] case in which all of the issues raised were barred by the procedural requirements of Rule 61(i), then summary disposition of the motion is entirely appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).