Scott v. State
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRETT SCOTT, §
§ No. 424, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 1706021079(K) STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Appellee. §
Submitted: June 26, 2024
Decided: August 12, 2024
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.
ORDER On this 12th day of August 2024, after consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears that the Superior Court’s order1 adopting the Commissioner’s report denying Brett Scott’s motion for postconviction relief on the basis of the court’s determination that “trial counsel for Mr. Scott was not deficient as contemplated by Strickland [v. Washington]”2 should be affirmed.
We reject, however, the Commissioner’s apparent finding—and the Superior Court’s adoption of it—that Scott’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was procedurally barred under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3).3 In Green v. State,4 this Court clarified that post-conviction ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not subject to Rule 61(i)(3)’s procedural bar. And since Green, the commissioners’ recommendations, to the extent they have suggested to the contrary, have been consistently rejected.5 We struggle to understand why this issue recurs.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.