holding that there was no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that an evidentiary hearing in connection with the defendant's postconviction motion was not necessary
Summary of this case from State v. JacksonNo. 522, 2007.
July 22, 2008.
Appeal from the Superior Cr 0508014827.
DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS. AFFIRMED.
holding that there was no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that an evidentiary hearing in connection with the defendant's postconviction motion was not necessary
Summary of this case from State v. Jacksonaffirming the trial court's determination that a hearing pursuant to Rule 61(h) was not necessary
Summary of this case from State v. TuckerFull title:Morla v. State
Court:Supreme Court of Delaware
Date published: Jul 22, 2008
Del. Super. Crim. R. 61(h)(1).See Morla v. State, 2008 WL 2809156, at *1 (Del. July 22, 2008) (affirming the…
State v. JacksonSuper. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1).Morla v. State, 2008 WL 2809156 (Del.Supr.) (holding that there was no evidence…