Ploof v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary dismissal of Ploof’s second post-conviction motion as untimely and successive. It held that Ploof’s later resentencing did not restart the post-conviction limitations period and that he failed to satisfy the actual-innocence exception. The Court also rejected his due-process challenge to the governing post-conviction rule because the rule provides greater post-conviction protections than the Constitution requires.