33:T498,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Hartman v. State, 435, 2017","datePublished":"2017-12-19","legislationDate":"2017-12-19","citation":"Hartman v. State, No. 435, 2017 (Del. Dec 19, 2017)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of Delaware","description":"Read the full text of Hartman v. State (Hartman v. State, No. 435, 2017 (Del. Dec 19, 2017)). This legal opinion, filed in 2017-12-19, from the Supreme Court of Delaware discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/hartman-v-state-4230589"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/hartman-v-state-4230589","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Hartman v. State, Supreme Court of Delaware, Hartman v. State, No. 435, 2017 (Del. Dec 19, 2017)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T4d6,

*1 Before VALIHURA , VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

O R D E R

This 19 th day of December 2017, after consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the State's motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be affirmed. The Superior Court did not err in dismissing the appellant's second motion for postconviction relief. The motion was procedurally barred and failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(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/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice 2