 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Revel v. State9/24/2003
prejudice from violation of rights." There is, moreover, no evidence of a "miscarriage of justice because of a constitutional violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.
(10) To the extent that the claims were raised in Revel's March 2003 request for sentence relief, and rejected by the Superior Court, the claims are barred under Rule 61(i)(4). Under this provision, "any ground for relief which has already been adjudicated is barred unless reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice."
(11) It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is without merit. The issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law, and to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|