JAY M. RINGGOLD, Defendant Below, Appellant,
STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee
Submitted July 25, 2014.
Case Closed November 5, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. Cr. ID No. 1006015765.
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices.
Randy J. Holland , Justice.
This 17th day of October 2014, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Jay M. Ringgold, has appealed the Superior Court's denial of his first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (" Rule 61" ). After careful consideration of the parties' briefs on appeal and the Superior Court record, the Court has concluded that the denial of postconviction relief should be affirmed.
(2) The record reflects that, in June 2010, as part of a narcotics investigation that relied in part on information obtained from a confidential informant, police executed a search warrant at 2913 N. Washington Street in Wilmington, Delaware. Police seized a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun and holster from a storage box in the basement of the residence. Also in the storage box were identifying documents belonging to Ringgold.
(3) Ringgold was indicted on one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (hereinafter " PDWBPP" ) and was convicted of that offense at a bench trial on March 9, 2011. At sentencing on June 3, 2011, the Superior Court declared Ringgold a habitual offender and sentenced him to eight years, minimum mandatory, at Level V. On direct appeal, we affirmed the conviction and sentence under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (" Rule 26(c)" ).
(4) On direct appeal, Ringgold raised several points in response to his appellate counsel's Rule 26(c) submission, including that he was denied the right to a speedy trial, the State withheld exculpatory evidence, and he was convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence. We rejected those points as without merit.
(5) Ringgold also claimed that the evidence seized during the search should have been suppressed (hereinafter " suppression claim" ), and that he was denied the right to confront the confidential informant (hereinafter " confrontation claim" ). We declined to consider those claims, however, after determining that they were intertwined with an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim (hereinafter " ineffective counsel claim" ) that was not reviewable on direct appeal.
(6) On July 30, 2012, Ringgold filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief and amendments to that motion (collectively " the postconviction motion" ). Ringgold also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The postconviction motion raised the claims that were raised but not considered on Ringgold's direct appeal, namely, the ineffective counsel claim, the suppression claim, and the confrontation claim, as well as other grounds for relief, including that Ringgold was coerced into waiving a jury trial (hereinafter " coercion claim" ), was denied the right to ...