Scott v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Scott’s postconviction motions. It held that Scott’s newly raised claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective would not be considered because it was not presented to the Superior Court, and it adopted the Commissioner’s conclusion that the remaining claims were procedurally barred or meritless. The Court also found that counsel satisfied the requirements for filing a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw.