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. Taylor

Superior Court of Delaware

March 3, 2017

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
LEONARD M. TAYLOR, Defendant

          Submitted: January 11, 2017

         On Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief. SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

         On Defendant's Request for an Evidentiary Hearing. DENIED AS MOOT.

          Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

          Leonard M. Taylor, James T. Vaughn Correctional Institution, Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.

          ORDER

          Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

         This 3rd day of March 2017, upon consideration of Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

         1. On January 31, 2011, following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of non-capital Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. On April 29, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief. The Court appointed counsel to represent Defendant in that motion.

         2. In his first Motion for Postconviction Relief, Defendant asserted the following grounds for postconviction relief:

His first assertion is that trial counsel was ineffective because he allegedly failed to advise the State that Defendant was willing to plead "no contest" to the charge of manslaughter. Defendant acknowledges that the State offered him a plea agreement to the charge of manslaughter, but with that offer he would have had to plead "guilty." Defendant claims that he asked his trial counsel if he could plead "no contest, " and trial counsel told him that was not possible without consulting the State. Defendant claims that "[t]rial counsel did not even know [Defendant's] plea options, because he never discussed [Defendant's] no contest plea proposal with the State." Finally, Defendant claims that this deficient performance by trial counsel prejudiced him, because if he was able to secure a no contest plea to manslaughter, "his sentence would have been vastly less, even at its maximum, than the one he is currently serving."[1]

         3. This Court denied Defendant's first Motion for Postconviction Relief, finding that Defendant had failed to show that his trial counsel's representation of him fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as required by Strickland v. Washington. That decision was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.[2]

         4. On November 17, 2016, Defendant filed this second Motion for Postconviction Relief. In his second motion, Defendant claims sixteen grounds for relief:

[Ground One:] Trial counsel was ineffective by failing to exercise sound judgment, by allowing State to sandbag the defense through improper solicited statement from witness on direct examination that inflamed the minds of the jurors, creating incurable underlying prejudice against the defendant's innocence.
[Ground Two:] Trial and appellate counsel were both ineffective in each stage of the trial and direct appeal advocacy process by failing to know or use applicable applications of law to defend the Defendant's right pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments against self-incrimination, and the due process provisions of the fourteenth amendments.
. . .
[Ground Three:] Trial counsel and appellate counsel were both ineffective in each stage of trial and direct appeal advocacy by failing to investigate and present the evidence showing that Mr. Briggs was a government agent, or raise argument on direct appeal that trial counsel abused its discretion by allowing State to provide testimony by witnesses in ...

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.