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. Trawick

Superior Court of Delaware

October 27, 2014

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
DAMIEN R. TRAWICK Defendant

Submitted: August 30, 2014

Amended Date of Decision: January 4, 2016

On Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief. DENIED.

Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State

Christopher D. Tease, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Defendant

ORDER

RICHARD R. COOCH, R.J.

This 27th day of October, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's First Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

1. Defendant Damien R. Trawick pled guilty in September 2012 to one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited ("PDWBPP"). Prior to sentencing, the State filed a motion to declare Defendant a habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) which was granted by another judge of this Court. Defendant was sentenced in November 2012 to 8 years Level V followed by 6 months of Level IV work release.[1]Since his sentencing, Defendant has filed several Motions for Correction of Sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35, all of which have been denied.[2]
2. Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief on October 23, 2013. Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e), counsel was appointed and an order of briefing established. Defendant through counsel filed the instant Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief May 28, 2014. Defendant's then-appointed counsel submitted an affidavit pursuant to Rule 61(g) on June 25.[3] The State submitted a response to Defendant's motion on August 11. Though Defendant had the option to, he did not file a reply.
3. Defendant's sets forth four grounds for relief in his Motion:
1) Ineffective assistance of counsel because Defendant "talk[ed] to lawyer once in [sic] he went straight for plea before introduction;"
2) Illegal arrest because there was "no strong reason for bothering me in the first place;"
3) Inappropriate sentence because Defendant "signed for Habitual Offender in [sic] still received 8 yrs;"
4) PDWBPP was "not a violent felony at the time of his plea, and therefore he was not being sentenced for a violent felony pursuant to 11 Del. C. 4214(a), and therefore, not facing 8 to life." Defendant further argues that because Possession Within 300' of a Park was no longer being considered a violent felony as of September 1, ...

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.