Opinion
Def. ID #0001010398
April 1, 2002
Motion for Post Conviction Relief (R-1)
Jessie J. Drummond, SBI #00187573, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, DE.
Dear Mr. Drummond:
The Court has studied your Motion for Post Conviction Relief, together with the Court's file. Your petition is denied.
Following a jury trial, your were convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession With the Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping a Controlled Substance, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Resisting Arrest, and eight motor vehicle violations. As to the Trafficking in Cocaine charge, you received a sentence of seven years at Level 5. On the Possession with the Intent to Deliver Cocaine, you received a sentence of eight years at Level 5, which was suspendable upon completion of the Key Program, to allow you to proceed to the Crest Program, and subsequently to Level 3 probation. You received probation on the remaining charges.
You appealed this conviction and it was affirmed. Jessie R. Drummond v. State of Delaware, Del. Supr., No. 506, 2000, Holland, J. (Feb. 14, 2001) (ORDER) Subsequently, you filed a series of motions for modification of sentence, which were denied.
In your Motion for Post Conviction Relief, you have raised one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. It is based upon a failure to file a motion for a suppression hearing, and failure to prepare and present a reasonable defense. This is your first opportunity to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and therefore it is not procedurally barred.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, you must show that your attorney's performance was deficient. In other words, you must show that he made errors so serious that he was not functioning as "counsel". In reviewing whether or not an attorney's representation was State of Delaware v. Jessie J. Drummond Motion for Post Conviction Relief (R-1) Page Two March 28, 2002 deficient, the Court must determine whether or not the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. It is not this Court's function to second-guess reasonable trial tactics. Also, to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that the deficient performance by his attorney actually prejudiced his defense. In other words, were his attorney's errors so serious that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial? Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) If you fail to establish both deficient performance and prejudice, your claim must be denied.
You claim your attorney was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the statement you made because of police non-compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In order to file a motion to suppress evidence there must be a basis for that motion. You make an allegation that you were not Mirandized. In your application you cite much law, but never claim that you were not Mirandized. In the portions of the transcript you attached to your petition you include testimony from the police officer that he Mirandized you. He testified that you responded that you understood your rights and agreed to answer his questions. Based upon what you have presented to me in your own petition, I do not find that your attorney committed any errors or mistakes for not filing a suppression motion.
Your second claim is that your attorney's trial strategy was deficient. The officer pulled you over on the motor vehicle charges. While returning to his vehicle, he testified that he heard a clicking and rattling type of sound. He turned around and saw a pill bottle on the ground. You suggest a series of questions that you believe would have been better for the attorney to have asked, such as "wasn't the pill box already there and the officer must have kicked it as he was walking". You argue that this would have been a good tactic because the officer would not be focusing on the roadway but focusing on his investigation of your crimes, etc.
As afore-stated, the courts need to be deferential in reviewing claims of trial strategy and cross-examination. The courts must not get into "Monday morning quarter backing". The State's evidence was that the officer heard something roll on the ground as he left your vehicle and return to his vehicle. The reasonable inference is that something was thrown from your vehicle. In making decisions in how to cross-examine, your attorney also was aware the State had evidence that you had confessed that you had thrown it from your vehicle and admitted that the crack cocaine found in the pill box was yours.
Now that you are convicted you believe that your attorney should have asked a different series of questions, but in light of the evidence I do not find his questioning to have been deficient or unreasonable. Your attorney is not required to "think up" a better defense.
Based upon all of the evidence presented, both the State's and the defendant's, I am satisfied that the jury had the opportunity to fully understand the events alleged to have taken place on the date of your arrest and that the jury's verdict was reasonable. I do not find that your State of Delaware v. Jessie J. Drummond Motion for Post Conviction Relief (R-1) Page Three March 28, 2002 attorney made errors so serious that he fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, nor do I find that his cross-examination prejudiced the defense in that his tactics were so seriously deficient so as to deprive you of a fair trial. I find that the trial result was reliable.
Defendant's motion for Post Conviction Relief is denied.
SO ORDERED.