Garner v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Garner’s second postconviction motion because it was barred as untimely, repetitive, and procedurally defaulted, and because the absence of counsel during Garner’s first postconviction proceeding did not establish a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that federal law did not create a constitutional right to counsel in an initial postconviction proceeding and that Delaware’s amended appointment-of-counsel rule did not apply retroactively to Garner’s second motion.