State v. Watson

Full title: State of Delaware v. David M. Watson, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County

Date published: Jan 24, 2008

ID Nos. 0603014298, 0603017504 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 24, 2008)

Opinion

ID Nos. 0603014298, 0603017504.

January 24, 2008.

David M. Watson, Howard Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, DE.

T. HENLEY GRAVES, Resident Judge

Dear Mr. Watson:

On November 27, 2007, you filed your first Motion for Postconviction Relief. In it you allege your attorneys were ineffective in representing you. The Motion is timely filed and not procedurally barred.

I ordered a transcript of your guilty plea and enclose a copy for you. After reviewing your claims and the transcript, I have concluded your Motion should be denied.

DISCUSSION

To be successful on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, you have the burden to establish that your attorneys made mistakes in representing you or they failed to do what a reasonably prudent attorney would have done. You must also establish that any errors or omissions actually caused you prejudice as to the decision to plead guilty. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988); State v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21244679 (Del.Super. Apr. 15, 2003).

You are required to make specific allegations of error or omission. Conclusory allegations therefore must fail.

On December 6, 2006, you entered guilty pleas and pleas of no contest to numerous felony charges. You pled guilty to two burglaries, one theft of a firearm and carrying a concealed deadly weapon. You pled no contest to robbery in the first degree and the weapons offense. As to the robbery and weapons offenses, you did not admit committing the offenses but acknowledged the State had sufficient evidence to convict you, but you were not admitting to committing the offense. That evidence was reviewed. In your letter presented to me on the morning of your plea and subsequent sentence, you stated ". . . I realize the state has a lot of evidence against me and this evidence tends to indicate that I committed these horrendous crimes". This comment concerned the robbery charges.

ALLEGATIONS

You allege your attorneys were ineffective for failing to entertain a strategy of attacking your alleged illegal detention and the search and seizure of evidence.

You allege you never saw your police reports until after you were sentenced and the reports would establish an illegal arrest, but you have not provided the Court with any of the documents or reports.

You allege counsel did not pursue a motion for reverse amenability, thereby negatively impacting the outcome of your case.

You allege the shotgun allegedly used in the robbery was not stolen until days after the robbery.

DISCUSSION

All of the above was either known by you at the time of the plea or you failed to prove that anything you learned later actually prejudiced you in your decision to plead guilty. You have made general, conclusory allegations.

The plea colloquy evidences that you were not admitting you committed the robbery but you acknowledge the State's evidence supported the no contest plea. Your letter essentially says the same thing. The prosecutor did not say the shotgun stolen in the burglary was identical to the one used in the robbery. She said it "appeared to be" the same. Also, she stated the shotgun used in the robbery was "sawed off" and a similar weapon was found in your residence.

It was apparent that you discussed your circumstances fully with your attorneys and your father and therefore made a business decision to accept a package plea offer on the day of your final case review. Your lawyer stated to the Court "This case has been with our office for a long time. We have had extensive contact with Mr. Watson."

You advised you were satisfied with counsel and you had enough time to consult with him. You had no complaints against counsel or "anybody in the Public Defenders Office". We had a full discussion as to what you were doing.

CONCLUSION

You have not pled with particularity any errors or omissions which caused you to plead guilty. Your allegations are conclusory. The extensive plea colloquy in which you told me you were going to tell me the truth undermines your present allegations. As to the omissions alleged, you have not established you would have prevailed had either a suppression motion been filed or an amenability motion.

You knew the evidence the State would present and you made a decision to plead guilty. I remain convinced it was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.

Your Motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.