Carrigan v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRANDON M. CARRIGAN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 19, 2019 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID Nos. 1109008434 & 1503000827 (N) Submitted: May 13, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019 Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court’s order, dated December 13, 2018, adopting the Commissioner’s report and recommendation, dated August 21, 2018, and summarily dismissing the second motion for postconviction relief should be affirmed.1 Carrigan was not convicted after trial, he did not satisfy the requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2),2 and his claims were meritless. The Superior Court did not err in denying 1 State v. Carrigan, 2018 WL 6601174 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2018). Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (providing that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” pleads with particularity new evidence creating a strong inference that the movant was actually innocent or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review). 2 Carrigan’s motion for appointment of counsel and in summarily dismissing the postconviction motion. 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
