Opinion
I.D. No. 80001076DI.
Date Submitted: February 16, 2007.
Date Decided: May 18, 2007.
Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Transcripts and Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
DENIED.MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 1981, Defendant Japhis Lampkins, Sr. was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, burglary in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed these convictions in 1983. Defendant now moves for an order requesting transcripts of the 1981 trial and for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 5103, Defendant argues that the Court must appoint counsel "FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ALSO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE FACT OF HAVING DNA ARGUED FOR RECONSIDERATION OR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON DISCOVERED EVIDENCE."
11 Del. C. § 5103 provides:
(a) The Superior Court shall assign counsel to any person on trial for murder, manslaughter or any offense punishable by death, or the offense of being an accomplice or accessory to any such crime, if such person is unable to obtain counsel.
(b) The Court may assign counsel to any person in any criminal prosecution as provided by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Superior Court.
Def. Mot. Appointment of Counsel at 1.
The matter at hand was opened and investigated as an Innocence Project in 2002. According to Lisa M. Schwind, Director of the Innocence Project, investigators specifically opened the case in order to locate "a hair which microscopically tested similar to defendant." The investigation, however, yielded no evidence for post-conviction testing because several boxes containing evidence from the 1981 trial were destroyed. Moreover, the remaining boxes did not yield evidence "suitable for testing".
Letter from Lisa M. Schwind, Director of the Innocence Project (March 5, 2007)
Id.
In light of this investigation, the Court must deny Defendant's Motion for Transcripts and for Appointment of Counsel. Both of these motions arise from Defendant's contention that new evidence exists which may exculpate him of the 1981 convictions. Because the above investigation confirms that no evidence exists, the Court finds Defendant's motions moot. Furthermore, "the State is not required to provide funds for every investigative service requested by an indigent defendant." On appeal, Defendant has the burden of proving "by clear and convincing evidence that substantial prejudice resulted from the denial of funds for the requested investigative services." No prejudice exists in the case at hand as investigators already opened Defendant's case to search for new evidence and found nothing suitable for DNA testing.
Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del.Super.Ct. 1996) (citing Van Arsdall v. State, 486 A.2d 1, 14 (Del. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 524 A.2d 3 (1987)).
Id.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Transcripts and Motion for Appointment of Counsel are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.