IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TRAEVON DIXON, § § Defendant Below, § No. 214, 2022 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1809015332 (S) § Appellee. § Submitted: September 14, 2022 Decided: October 11, 2022 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

ORDER After careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s decision, dated June 2, 2022, denying the appellant’s first motion for postconviction relief as untimely. The appellant’s conviction became final on March 27, 2020; he filed a motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court nearly two years later, on March 7, 2022.1 The appellant

The appellant filed a motion for appointment of postconviction counsel on March 7, 2022. The States indicates that it is not clear from the record whether the Superior Court also received the motion for postconviction relief on March 7, 2022, or whether it received that motion on March 9, 2022. The Superior Court’s decision denying the motion states that the motion was filed on March 7, and we therefore use that date; in any event, the difference between the two dates is not material here. has not asserted that a newly recognized, retroactive right applies to his case;2 nor has he pleaded any other circumstances that overcome the procedural bar set forth in Rule 61(i)(1).3 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/ Karen L. Valihura Justice

DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i)(1).

See id. 61(i)(5) (“The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subdivision shall not apply either to a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction or to a claim that satisfies the pleading requirements of subparagraphs (2)(i) or (2)(ii) of subdivision (d) of this rule.”).