Archy v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CORNELIUS ARCHY, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 219, 2025
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2212001152B (N)
§
Appellee. §

Submitted: December 19, 2025
Decided: February 3, 2026

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

(1) The appellant, Cornelius Archy, has appealed the Superior Court’s

denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule

61. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the

Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) A Superior Court jury found Archy guilty of possession of a firearm by

a person prohibited and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited. Archy

was represented by counsel at trial, but after trial and before sentencing he sought

and was permitted, after a hearing, to proceed pro se. He then filed a motion for a

judgment of acquittal, which the court denied as time-barred because it was not filed
within seven business days of the jury’s verdict. The Superior Court sentenced

Archy on June 17, 2024. He did not file a direct appeal.

(3) On July 25, 2024, Archy filed a motion for postconviction relief. He

later filed several amended motions. Archy asserted that the evidence at trial was

insufficient to support his convictions and claimed that his trial counsel provided

ineffective assistance. After receiving briefing and expanding the record with an

affidavit from trial counsel, the Superior Court denied Archy’s motion. On appeal

to this Court, Archy contends that (i) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by

misstating evidence, arguing facts not in evidence, and reading a witness’s prior

statement to police in front of the jury; and (ii) the evidence was insufficient to allow

a reasonable juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Archy actually or

constructively possessed a firearm and ammunition.

(4) This Court reviews the Superior Court’s denial of a motion for

postconviction relief for abuse of discretion. 1 We review legal or constitutional

questions, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo. 2 The Court

considers the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing substantive

issues.3

1
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013).
2
Id.
3
Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748, 756-57 (Del. 2016).

2
(5) Archy did not present his prosecutorial-misconduct claims to the

Superior Court in the first instance, and he therefore failed to preserve them for

appellate review.4 Moreover, Rule 61 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal

Procedure bars his prosecutorial-misconduct and insufficient-evidence claims.

Under Rule 61(i)(3), “[a]ny ground for relief that was not asserted in the proceedings

leading to the judgment of conviction” is barred unless the movant shows both cause

for relief from the procedural default and prejudice.5 Archy did not file a direct

appeal asserting the claims that he presents in this postconviction appeal, and he has

not demonstrated cause for relief from the default. The claims are therefore

procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3).6

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice

4
DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 8.
5
DEL. SUPER. CT. R. CRIM. PROC. 61(i)(3).
6
See Lopez v. State, 2008 WL 835158, at *1 (Del. Mar. 28, 2008) (holding that claim of insufficient
evidence was procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) because the defendant did not raise it at trial or
on direct appeal); Campbell v. State, 2003 WL 21998563, at *1 (Del. Aug. 21, 2003) (concluding
that postconviction claims were barred under Rule 61(i)(3) because they were not raised on direct
appeal and there was no evidence of cause or prejudice).

3