Submitted: February 17, 2015
On Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief. DENIED.
Susan G. Schmidhauser, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, Attorney for the State
George P. Johnson, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, pro se
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
This 13th day of May, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant's Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:
1. Defendant George P. Johnson was found guilty after a trial in April 2008 of Delivery of Cocaine to a Minor, Delivery of Cocaine within 300 Feet of a Park, and Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. Defendant was sentenced to twenty years at Level V, suspended after a minimum mandatory ten years for three years at Level IV Crest Program, suspended after successful completion for Level III probation.  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on direct appeal.
2. Defendant filed his first Motion for Postconviction Relief in December 2008. That motion was summarily dismissed by this Court and the Supreme Court, upon appeal by Defendant, affirmed this Court's decision. Defendant filed the instant motion, his Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, on April 23, 2014. Defendant also filed several Motions to Amend Motion for Postconviction Relief, one on April 23 (the same day he filed the motion itself) and one on September 18, 2014. Defendant also filed a "Motion to Amend Motion to Vacate Conviction and Sentence Based on Newly Discovered Evidence" on September 18, 2014. These motions will be considered supplements to Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief.
3. The State filed a Response on July 24, 2014 and then filed an Amended Response on January 26, 2015, after Defendant had filed the Motions to Amend discussed herein. Defendant then had the option to file a Reply, but failed to do so.
4. Defendant in his Second Motion for Postconviction Relief and his numerous other filings makes the following claims:
1. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire a private investigator to show that the vantage point of the police was obstructed;
2. Police witnesses committed perjury by testifying that they could see clearly from 150 feet away and by identifying Defendant as the individual committing the crime;
3. The private investigator hired by Defendant produced a report, the results of which contradict the testimony ...