Desmond v. State, 195, 2017

In November 1992, Desmond was convicted by a Superior Court jury of ten counts of first‑degree robbery and related offenses; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Since then Desmond has repeatedly filed postconviction and habeas challenges in state and federal court, all unsuccessful.
In February 2015, this Court ordered the Clerk to refuse any filings from Desmond unless accompanied by the filing fee or a granted in forma pauperis (IFP) motion with the statutory sworn certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e).
On May 9, 2017, Desmond appealed from a Superior Court order denying (a) his motion to amend his Rule 61 motion to vacate, (b) his amended motion to recuse the judge, and (c) his motion to apply State v. Bridgers and State v. Owens to his Rule 61 motion.
The Court issued a show‑cause notice requiring Desmond to explain the basis for his § 8803(e) certifications that the claims had never been raised or disposed of and were not foreclosed by controlling law.
Desmond conceded he previously raised Bridgers/Owens arguments; the Court found his certifications false, denied his IFP motion, and dismissed the appeal as procedurally barred.

Issue	Desmond's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Desmond's Bridgers/Owens challenges to his robbery convictions are procedurally barred under Rule 61	Desmond argued his refined Bridgers/Owens claims warrant reconsideration of his robbery convictions	The State contended the claims were previously raised/decided and therefore barred by Rule 61	Court held the claims were barred by prior proceedings and Rule 61; not reconsidered
Whether Desmond's IFP certification was adequate and whether the appeal should proceed	Desmond certified the claims had never been raised/disposed and were not foreclosed by controlling law	The State (and Court) showed the certifications were false given Desmond's extensive prior filings; thus IFP improperly granted	Court denied IFP, found certification false, and dismissed the appeal

Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
State v. Bridgers, 988 A.2d 939 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007) (decision cited by Desmond as basis for challenging robbery convictions)