Submitted: April 24, 2015
Mark A. Denney, Jr., Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.
Jay M. Ringgold, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
COMMISSIONER LYNNE M. PARKER, JUDGE
This 2nd day of June, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. On August 2, 2010, Defendant Jay M. Ringgold was indicted on one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (hereinafter "PDWBPP").
2. The trial was continued once from December 2, 2010 to March 8, 2011, in order to allow DNA testing on the gun at issue to be performed.
3. The DNA Unit of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") performed DNA testing on the gun at issue and the results were inconclusive. Indeed, the conclusion was that: "No conclusion can be made in regards to Jay Ringgold . . . as a DNA contributor of the evidentiary sample. . . (gun swabs)." Thus, the DNA test results were neither exculpatory nor harmful to the defense. Since the DNA results were inconclusive, Defendant's trial counsel filed a Motion in Limine to exclude any evidence of the OCME's testing and results at trial.
4. The court granted Defendant's motion in limine to exclude any evidence of the OCME's testing and the DNA test results at trial.
5. Defendant Ringgold was tried before a Superior Court judge on March 9, 2011. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the Superior Court convicted Defendant Ringgold of PDWBPP. On June 3, 2011, the Superior Court declared Defendant Ringgold a habitual offender and sentenced him to eight years, minimum mandatory, at Level V.
6. Defendant filed a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On direct appeal, Defendant's counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 26 (c). On direct appeal, Defendant 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 that he was convicted on the basis of insufficient evidence. On March 20, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court found those claims to be without merit and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Superior Court.
7. On July 30, 2012, Defendant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief and thereafter filed amendments to that motion. Defendant also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. In that postconviction motion, Defendant raised a number of claims including ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
8. Before ruling on Defendant's first motion for postconviction relief, the record was enlarged and Defendant's trial counsel was directed to submit an Affidavit responding to Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In turn, the State was ...