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. Dukes

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

October 2, 2013

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
LLOYD K. DUKES, Defendant.

Submitted: October 1, 2013

Upon Consideration of Defendant's Motion For Postconviction Relief Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61

No. 06-04-0897-01, RK06-04-0899-01, Rape 3rd (F)

R. David Favata, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.

Lloyd K. Dukes, Pro se.

ORDER

DENIED 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, Lloyd K. Dukes ("Dukes"), pled guilty on June 18, 2007, to two counts of Rape in the Third Degree, 11 Del. C. § 771. In exchange for Dukes' plea, the State entered a nolle prosequis on the remaining charges of an additional eighteen counts of Rape in the Third Degree, and twenty counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree and agreed to request a presentence investigation. On August 16, 2007, Dukes was sentenced to thirty years at Level V, suspended after ten years and eight months, followed by probation. Four years were a minimum mandatory term.

2. The Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court; instead, over five years after Dukes' sentencing, he 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) Ineffective assistance of Counsel.

3. 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.

4.The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Motion For Postconviction Relief should be denied, because it is procedurally time barred and meritless.

5. 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 Recommendation dated August 8, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court, and the Defendant's Motion For ...


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.