State v. Holmes

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
)
v. ) Crim. Act. No. 1210019908
)
)
ERIC HOLMES )

Date Submitted: October 28, 2025, November 17, 2025
Date Decided: January 30, 2026

ORDER DENYING HOLMES’
MOTION TO COMPEL & MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

1. Defendant Eric Holmes was found guilty after a jury trial of Possession

of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. 1 The facts of his conviction have been found
0F

previously by this Court:

On October 27, 2012, [Holmes] was one of the occupants of a vehicle
that was the subject of a police stop in the 800 block of North Spruce
Street. A reliable confidential informant had advised Wilmington
Police that within that vehicle was a firearm. Upon arrival, police
located the vehicle which was occupied by Holmes, codefendant Oliver
Smith, and occupants Latisha Powell and Deoddrick Purnell. All
occupants were asked to exit the vehicle, all complied and were placed
in custody. A black Ruger “single six” .22 revolver was found in
Holmes’ waistband which was loaded with five .22 caliber Remington
rounds. Inside his left leg pant pocket was one clear bag containing six
Endocet pills and eight Alprazolam (Xanax) pills. A black Intratec 9
mm Leger Tec 9 was found in codefendant Smith’s waistband which

1
State v. Eric Holmes, Crim. I.D. No. 120019908, Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”)
45, 46.
was loaded with thirty 9 mm Lugar rounds with one in the chamber.
Occupants Powell and Purnell were questioned and released. 2 1F

2. At the time of sentencing, the State moved to declare Holmes a habitual

offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214. 3 Holmes was so declared, and sentenced as
2F

a habitual offender to sixteen (16) years at Level V, followed by decreasing levels

of supervision. 4 Holmes appealed his conviction, which was ultimately affirmed
3F

by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware on January 29, 2015. 5 4F

3. Holmes moved for a sentence reduction on February 24, 2015, which

this Court denied on March 4, 2015. 65F

4. On February 27, 2015, Holmes moved for appointment of counsel for

purposes of moving for postconviction relief. 7 This request was granted and
6F

postconviction counsel was appointed. 8 In relation to the appointment of counsel,
7F

the Court Ordered trial counsel to provide the entirety of his file to postconviction

counsel and that other documents from the Court’s file and appropriate items of the

Investigative Services Office’s file be made available to postconviction counsel. 9
8F

2
State v. Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150, *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 17, 2016).
3
D.I. 45.
4
D.I. 45, 46.
5
Holmes v. State, 2015 WL 428071, at *1 (Del. Jan. 29, 2015).
6
D.I. 57, 59.
7
D.I. 56.
8
D.I. 67; State v. Holmes, 2015 WL 1197687, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2015).
9
D.I. 71.
4. On October 20, 2015, Holmes filed his first motion for postconviction

relief. 10 On January 27, 2016, counsel moved to withdraw his representation. 11
9F 10F

Holmes then moved to compel the State to produce certain discovery items

concerning the investigation of his case. 12 Specifically, Holmes requested: (1) “the
11F

statements of L. Powell and D. Purnell” (2) DNA results; (3) ballistic results. 13 On 12F

August 17, 2016, this Court denied Holmes’ motion to compel discovery, noting that

Holmes conceded that “all evidence subject to Rule 61 discovery was turned over

long ago…[and that] Holmes ha[d] failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for the

discovery of the requested evidence – even if the additional evidence exists.” 1413F

5. Ultimately, postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted

and Holmes’ postconviction motion was denied on December 15, 2016. 15 Holmes
14F

appealed the denial, 16 which was later affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. 17
15F 16F

10
D.I. 69. This initial filing was a “placeholder” motion. Thereafter, a full briefing
schedule was issued by the Court which provided for an amended counseled
postconviction motion to be filed. D.I. 70.
11
D.I. 73, 74.
12
D.I. 79, 82.
13
Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150, at *1.
14
Id. at *2.
15
D.I. 85; State v. Holmes, 2016 WL 7324098, at *9 (Del. Super. Dec. 15, 2016).
16
D.I. 86,
17
Holmes v. State, 2017 WL 3725065, at *2 (Del. Aug. 29, 2017). Holmes appeared
to only appeal certain aspects of the Superior Court’s decision, as noted in the
Supreme Court’s Order: “To the extent that Holmes raised other issues in the motion
he filed in the Superior Court, he has waived any right to further review of those
claims on appeal by failing to argue them in his opening brief.” Id. at *1. This
waiver subsumes the denial of Holmes’ postconviction related discovery requests.
6. On June 1, 2018, Holmes petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 18 17F

This Petition was denied on June 8, 2018. 19 Following, Holmes filed a string of
18F

letters to the Court, including various unsupported requests for information. 20 19F

7. On February 3, 2025, Holmes filed a “Motion to Vacate Sentence” 21 20F

pursuant to Erlinger v. United States. 22 That motion is pending, as it was stayed at
21F

the request of the State on April 23, 2025. 23
22F

8. On May 5, 2025, Holmes filed the instant motion for postconviction

relief, his second, 24 accompanied by a motion for appointment of counsel. 25 The
23F 24F

motion for appointment of counsel was denied on July 16, 2025. 26 Following that
25F

denial, a briefing schedule for the postconviction motion was issued. 27 Amendments
26F

to that schedule were made at Holmes’ request for additional time. 28 27F The

postconviction motion is pending.

18
D.I. 90.
19
D.I. 95.
20
D.I. 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104.
21
D.I. 105.
22
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024).
23
D.I. 109.
24
D.I. 111.
25
D.I. 110.
26
D.I. 114.
27
D.I. 115.
28
D.I. 118, 119,
9. On October 28, 2025, Holmes filed a ”Motion to Compel Disclosure of

DNA Results and Complete Case File in Support of Pending Rule 61 Motion.” 29 In 28F

his motion, similar to his 2016 motion, Holmes requests: (1) DNA evidence, raw

data, laboratory notes, and chain of custody documentation associated with this case;

(2) the complete prosecution and defense case file, including all witness statements,

investigative reports, correspondence, notes, internal memoranda, and any other

exculpatory or impeaching materials. 30 Holmes asserts these materials are required
29F

for the prosecution of his postconviction motion, which is the basis for him moving

to stay the postconviction proceedings. Holmes’ motion for a stay argues the

requested discovery is needed prior to fully presenting his motion. 31
30F

10. Although a defendant does not have a discovery right under Rule 61,

this Court possesses “inherent authority under Rule 61 in the exercise of its

discretion to grant particularized discovery for good cause shown.” 32 “In allowing
31F

discovery, the Court will not allow a defendant ‘to go on a fishing expedition through

the government's files in hopes of finding some damaging evidence.’” 33 Such 32F

29
D.I. 120.
30
D.I 120.
31
D.I. 121.
32
Cabrera v. State, 173 A.3d 1012, 1032 (Del. 2017) (citing Dawson v. State, 673
A.2d 1186, 1197 (Del. 1996)).
33
State v. Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150, at *1 (Del. Super. Aug. 17, 2016) (citing
State v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1229684, *2 (Del. Super. May 3, 2006) (internal
citations omitted)).
discovery will only be granted when an inmate demonstrates “a compelling reason

for discovery.” 34 33F

11. Holmes has not presented any such compelling reason. Holmes’

assertions that he has never received DNA records or his full case files is

contradictory to the representations he made to the Court in 2016. The Court’s

finding that Holmes “concede[d] in his motion, [that] all evidence subject to Rule

61 discovery was turned over long ago” is equally important in the determination

here. 35
34F

12. Further, Holmes’ assertion of new evidence is also unavailing. Holmes

contends there is “an undisclosed ‘case participant list’ identifying Defense

witnesses with the designation ‘AG’” which he feels is “indicative of a possible

undisclosed connection between the witness and Attorney General’s office.” 36 35F

These claims are unsupported, conclusory and fail to establish any compelling

reason to justify his discovery requests. 37
36F

34
Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150, at *1 (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198
(Del. 1996) (materials requested “[were] not discoverable under a good cause
standard because [defendant] has shown no compelling reason for their
discovery”); see also State v. Cabrera, 2008 WL 3853998, *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug.
14, 2008).
35
Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150, at *2.
36
D.I. 120.
37
Holmes appears to be referring to a portion of the Court’s records, in which a
“Case Participant List” can be shown.
13. Finally, prior to deciding this matter, the Court engaged in a cursory

review of Holmes’ postconviction motion to assist in determining whether such a

compelling reason exists for production of the requested material. The pending

postconviction motion is Holmes’ second such motion. Therefore, procedural bars

are to be considered prior to any further analysis. 38 In order to avoid the procedural
37F

bars for subsequent postconviction motions, Holmes must plead “with particularity

that new evidence exists that creates a strong inference that the movant is actually

innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted” 39 or
38F

plead “with particularity a claim that a new rule of constitutional law, made

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the

Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case and renders the

conviction…invalid.” 40
39F

14. The decision denying Holmes’ request for appointment of counsel

already determined that Holmes has not pled either of these exceptions. There is

nothing presented in either Holmes’ instant motions to compel or for a stay that

warrants a different finding.

38
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
39
Super. Ct. Crim. R. Proc. 61(2)(i).
40
Super. Ct. Crim. R. Proc. 61(2)(ii).
15. Accordingly, Holmes has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for

the discovery of the evidence he now seeks. Therefore, his Motion to Compel

Production of Discovery, and likewise his Motion for Stay is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Brian Arban, Deputy Attorney General
Brian Robertson, Deputy Attorney General
Eric Holmes, pro se, SBI# 00465822