United States District Court, D. Delaware
LESHAWN WASHINGTON, Petitioner.
DAVID PIERCE, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
LeShawn Washington. Pro se Petitioner.
Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Deputy Attorney General of the
Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware.
Attorney for Respondents.
ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
is an inmate in custody at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center in Smyrna, Delaware. Petitioner filed an Application
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
("Petition1'). (D.I. 1) The State filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss the Petition as Time-Barred
(D.I. 19), which the Court granted. (D.I. 22) For the reasons
discussed, the Court will grant the State's Motion to
Dismiss (D.I. 24) and will deny the Petition as barred by the
limitations period prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
forth by the Delaware Supreme Court in Petitioner's
In January, 2011, JoeQwell Coverdale, [Petitioner], and
several friends went to First State Lanes, a bowling alley in
New Castle County. Coverdale and one friend stayed in the
parking lot smoking marijuana, while [Petitioner] and the
others went into the bowling alley.
Sometime after [Petitioner] entered the bowling alley,
Officer Jonathan Yard of the New Castle County Police
Department, who was on patrol, decided to stop and go into
the bowling alley. After Officer Yard arrived, he heard
multiple gun shots fired inside the building. A great many
screaming patrons began streaming out from the bowling alley.
Six people were found wounded inside the bowling alley.
The record reflects that [Petitioner] was in possession of a
handgun that evening. Later that evening, [Petitioner] said
to Coverdale that he-[Petitioner]-had seen several people he
"had a beef with" and "I think I got him, I
think I hit one of them." Anthony Stanley, one of the
shooting victims, was interviewed on videotape by Detective
Stephen Legenstein ("Detective Legenstein").
Stanley told the Detective that he was in a dispute with
[Petitioner], and this disagreement led to the shooting.
Stanley identified [Petitioner] as the person who shot him,
picking him out from a photo array. Stanley admitted he was
shooting at [Petitioner] as well.
[Petitioner] was charged with four counts of Assault in the
First Degree, two counts of Assault in the Second Degree,
twelve counts of [Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF")] and six counts of
Reckless Endangering in the First Degree. Stanley was also
charged with several crimes for his role in the shooting.
Washington v. State, 62 A.3d 1224 (Table), 2013 WL
961561, at *1 (Del. 2013). Petitioner was indicted on four
counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree
assault, six counts of first degree reckless endangering, and
thirteen counts of PFDCF. (D.I. 24 at 2) The State nolle
prossed one of the firearm charges, and a Delaware
Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of the remaining
twenty-four charges. On June 8, 2012, the Superior Court
sentenced Petitioner to a total of ninety-four years at Level
V incarceration, suspended after fifty-six years, followed by
probation. (D.I. 24 at 2) Petitioner appealed, and the
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence
on March 12, 2013. See Washington, 62 A.3d 1224
(Table), 2013 WL 961561, at *3.
March 12, 2014, while represented by counsel, Petitioner
filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Delaware
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion").
(D.I. 20-7 at 2) The Superior Court denied the Rule 61 motion
on August 29, 2014 (D.I. 19-2 at 18 Entry No. 60), and the
Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on November 13,
2014. See Washington v. State, 2015 WL 789794, at *4
(Del. Feb. 24, 2015). The Delaware Supreme Court issued its
mandate on March 28, 2013. (D.I. 24 at 2)
filed the instant Petition in February 2016, asserting the
following grounds for relief: (1) the trial court erred by
admitting the § 3507 statement of JoeQwell Coverdale;
(2) the indictment was multiplicitous; (3) Petitioner was
denied his right to a public trial; (4) defense counsel
provided ineffective assistance; and (5) the State engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct by presenting perjured testimony.
(D.I. 1) In response, the State filed a Motion for Leave to
File a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (D.I. 19), which the
Court granted. (D.I. 22) The Motion to Dismiss was docketed
separately. (D.I. 24) Although provided with an opportunity
to file an Answer to the State's Motion to Dismiss (D.I.
25), Petitioner did not do so.
ONE YEAR ...