Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Morrison

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

January 17, 2013

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
WILLIAM E. MORRISON, Defendant.

Submitted: September 5, 2012

Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion For Postconviction Relief Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 Nos. RK09-07-1201-01, RK09-07-1202-01 RK09-07-1203-01.

R. David Favata, Esq., Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for the State of Delaware.

William E. Morrison, Pro se.

ORDER

YOUNG, Judge

Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears that:

1. The Defendant, William E. Morrison ("Morrison"), was found guilty by a jury on April 6, 2010 to one count of Burglary in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 825; one count of Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 781; and one count of Offensive Touching, 11 Del. C. § 601. Prior to trial Morrison requested that he be allowed to proceed pro se and the Court granted his request with standby counsel. Following the verdict, the State filed a motion to declare Morrison a Habitual Offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). The motion was granted on June 17, 2010 and the Defendant was sentenced to a total of eight years incarceration at Level V followed by one year probation.

2. The Defendant filed an appeal, pro se, with the Delaware Supreme Court in which he raised three grounds for relief: 1) The witness's testimony was different from her statement to police; 2) The prosecutor failed to ask the witness if her testimony was truthful; and 3) The police failed to investigate the case properly and preserve exculpatory evidence.

3. The Court found Morrison's appeal meritless and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

4.Defendant then filed, pro se, the pending Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In his motion the defendant raises the following grounds for relief: 1) Movant was forced to go to trial without counsel; 2) Movant's Court appointed counsel was ineffective; and 3) Movant was forced to represent himself at trial without waiving his right to counsel.

4. The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. §512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law.

5.The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Motion For Postconviction Relief should be dismissed, because it is procedurally barred and fails to prove cause and prejudice.

6. No objections to the Report have been filed.

NOW, THEREFORE, after de novo review of the record in this action, and for reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.