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. Rivera

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

July 29, 2015

STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff,
v.
JORGE RIVERA, Defendant.

Submitted: June 3, 2015.

COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED.

Christina Kontis, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Attorney for the State.

Natalie S. Woloshin, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Attorney for Defendant.

BRADLEY V. MANNING, Commissioner.

This 29th day of July, 2015, upon consideration of defendant Jorge Rivera's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Court finds the following:

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 24, 2015, Rivera pled guilty to Assault Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. Rivera was sentenced immediately to four years of unsuspended Level V time, followed by probation. Rivera did not file an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. The offenses are alleged to have occurred on January 14, 2012; however, Rivera was not arrested until February 4, 2014. Due to a conflict of interest with first appointed defense counsel, Natalie Woloshin ("Defense Counsel") was appointed to represent Rivera on September 23, 2014.[1] The facts underlying Rivera's charges are unimportant to his Rule 61 claims and need not be recited here.

DEFENDANT'S RULE 61 CLAIM

Rivera timely filed his first pro se motion for postconviction relief with this Court on March 19, 2015. Defense Counsel filed an Affidavit, with attachments, denying Rivera's claims, on April 21, 2015. Rivera filed a Response to Defense Counsel's Affidavit on May 20, 2015. The State elected not to file a response.

Rivera's claims for postconviction relief are as follows:

1. Ineffective Counsel/Attorney Misconduct. I never received my police report or my Rule 61, and when I asked Mrs. Woloshin she responded by saying she couldn't provide me with the information because it was sealed.
2. Denial Right to Speedy Trial. The State postponed trial numerous times due to lack of physical evidence, witness testimony, and the state explained significant problems locating witnesses.
3. Ineffective Counsel/Attorney Misconduct. I continued to tell Mrs. Woloshin that I wanted to go to trial and I didn't want a plea agreement but she coerced me ...

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.