T. HENLEY GRAVES RESIDENT JUDGE
In August, 2013 the Defendant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief. His complaints primarily centered around his sentence. He attacked the Court colloquy in regard to his habitual sentence and his counsel's performance at sentencing.
Natalie Woloshin, Esquire ("Rule 61 Counsel") was appointed to represent the Defendant and permitted an opportunity to file an amended motion. This was done and the Defendant's pro se claims were abandoned and the following grounds were raised:
(a) the Trial Court erred and violated the Defendant's constitutional rights by denying a continuance request; and
(b) Trial Counsel was ineffective for not investigating claims of the Defendant's innocence.
Later, Rule 61 Counsel requested permission to supplement the amended motion. Counsel was granted permission and on May 28, 2014 a supplemental motion was filed alleging the police in this case obtained a search warrant using deliberate or reckless false statements. Therefore, any evidence obtained should be suppressed.
Finally, another Rule 61 Motion was filed in July 2014 raising the well known issues at the Medical Examiner's Office.
Upon a review of all of the files as well as the pleadings, Trial Counsel's Rule 61(g) affidavit, transcripts and the presentence investigative report, the Court is satisfied an evidentiary hearing is not necessary. This is the Court's decision denying the amended motion, the supplemental motion, and the Medical Examiner's motion.
In May 2012, the Defendant was arrested for a set of drug charges and resisting arrest. The most serious charge was Dealing, Tier 2. These cases involve case number 1110006466.
In September 2012, the Defendant was arrested on multiple counts of Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony, multiple counts of Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, multiple counts of Aggravated Menacing (with a firearm), multiple counts of Reckless Endangering in the first degree and a count of Resisting Arrest with Force. These cases involve ID #1209010415.
Primarily, because of the September 2012 charges the Public Defender's Office and then two conflict/contract attorneys we re "conflicted" out of the case . Ultimately, Trial Counsel was appointed on March 14, 2013. He was given both cases. The drug cases had a Final Case Review scheduled for April 17, 2013 and a trial date of April 23, 2013. The firearm and aggravated menacing case had a Final Case Review of May 8, 2013 and a trial date of May 13, 2013.
On April 11, 2013 Trial Counsel requested that the drug case trial date of April 23, 2013 be continued, but that the April 17, 2013 Final Case Review date be kept on for control. Case Scheduling denied the request due to the age of the case, but stated "can be re-addressed with the Judge at Final Case Review." Ultimately at the Final Case Review date the case was continued with a new Final Case Review date of June 4, 2013 and a trial date of June 10, 2013. Also, it was requested that the drug case be ...