Opinion
Nos. 88 and 89, 2003.
Submitted: June 25, 2003.
Decided: September 15, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 87001256DI Cr. ID No. 87001255DI
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below
CLAUDIO v. STATE, 88 (Del. 9-15-2003) CARMELO CLAUDIO and ENRIQUE MAYMI, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Nos. 88 and 89, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 25, 2003. Decided: September 15, 2003.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 87001256DI Cr. ID No. 87001255DI
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
Carolyn Berger, Justice:
This 15th day of September, 2003, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1) Carmelo Claudio and Enrique Maymi appeal from the Superior Court's denial of their motions for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 4504(a). They argue that, if DNA testing were to prove that the blood on their jackets is not the victims' blood, this new evidence would be materially relevant to their claims of actual innocence.
2) The Superior Court disagreed, holding that the blood stains were a minor, collateral issue, and that favorable DNA results would not make appellants' claims of actual innocence significantly more probable. In Anderson v. State, decided after the trial court decided appellants' motions, this Court adopted a standard very similar to the one applied by the trial court. Applying the Anderson standard, we are satisfied that appellants are not entitled to DNA testing for the reasons stated in the Superior Court's thoughtful decision.
___ A.2d ___ (Del. 2003).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.