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. Bradley

Superior Court of Delaware

May 18, 2017

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
EARL BRADLEY, Defendant.

          Submitted: April 24, 2017

         Upon Defendant's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief - DISMISSED Upon Defendant's Motion for Judicial Recusal - DENIED.

          Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, Department of Justice, Attorney for State of Delaware.

          Earl Bradley, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, Pro Se Defendant.

          ORDER

          William C. Carpenter Jr. Judge

         On this 18th day of May 2017, upon consideration of Petitioner Earl Bradley's ("Bradley" or "Petitioner") Second Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

         1. A Grand Jury indicted Bradley, a former pediatrician, on February 22, 2010, charging him with multiple counts of first degree rape, second degree assault, sexual exploitation of a child, first and second degree unlawful sexual contact, and continuous sexual abuse of a child.[1] On July 9, 2010, Bradley moved to suppress all evidence seized from his medical practice during a search executed pursuant to a warrant in December 2009. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, this Court denied the motion. Thereafter, Bradley waived his right to a jury trial, and proceeded to a bench trial based on an amended superseding indictment.

         2. On June 23, 2011, the Court found Bradley guilty of fourteen counts of Rape in the First Degree, five counts of Assault in the Second Degree, and five counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child for acts of sexual and physical abuse committed against children. He was sentenced to fourteen mandatory life sentences and 164 years at Level V incarceration for these crimes.

         3. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court sitting en Banc affirmed the Court's ruling on Bradley's Motion to Suppress, finding that the affidavit of probable cause alleged sufficient facts to support the search warrant and that the execution of the warrant was reasonable and within the bounds of the warrant issued.

         4. Bradley filed his first Motion for Postconviction Relief pro se on February 27, 2013. Patrick Collins, Esquire ("Mr. Collins") and Albert Roop, Esquire ("Mr. Roop") were appointed to represent Bradley in connection with his initial postconviction proceedings, and amendments to the motion were submitted thereafter. There, Bradley first sought relief on five grounds:

(1) State action deprived him of his choice of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution; (2) Ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to challenge the trial court's consideration of evidence outside of the four corners of the search warrant; (3) Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the issue of the trial court's consideration of evidence outside of the four corners of the search warrant on appeal; (4) Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to move for reargument following the Delaware Supreme Court's Opinion affirming conviction after it misapprehended a key fact; (5) Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to effectively assert or move for reargument on Detective Spillan's "unguided, discretionless" search of digital items violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution.[2]

         5. This Court denied Bradley's first postconviction motion, and Bradley appealed. While the appeal was pending, postconviction counsel moved for appointment of substitute counsel at Bradley's request. On January 14, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court denied Bradley's motion seeking appointment of substitute counsel and ordered that postconviction counsel continue representing Bradley on appeal.[3] The Delaware Supreme Court ultimately affirmed this Court's denial of postconviction relief in its Opinion issued March 3, 2016.

         6. On March 29, 2016, Petitioner filed, pro se, a Second Motion for Postconviction Relief.[4] A number of supporting memoranda and pro se motions to amend this second postconviction motion to include additional claims were filed thereafter.[5] Then, on May 11, 2016, Petitioner filed a "third" Motion for Postconviction relief pro se.[6] The Court will consider the filings as Bradley's Second Motion for Postconviction Relief. Collectively, Bradley claims twenty-four grounds for relief:

1. Ineffective Assistance of Postconviction Counsel. Bradley claims Mr. Collins "failed to include multiple issues of merit as grounds or claims" and "violated his duties" under the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct.
2. Constructive Denial of Postconviction Counsel. According to Petitioner, Mr. Collins "failed to render assistance regarding several issues of merit" and Mr. Roop "withdrew without notice and without replacement."
3. Denial of Right to Self-Representation. Petitioner claims his request to proceed pro se was ignored, the Supreme Court "forced" continued representation by Mr. Collins, and that his motion requesting that Justice Strine affirm "duty to sit" was ignored.
4. Delaware State Police has an Institutional Policy of Unconstitutional Computer Searches. Bradley claims the search in his case was conducted to a "calculated institutional policy" "frowned upon by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Bradley, the Court "abused discretion when this issue received improper application of law to the facts" and the counsel "was ineffective by not pursuing the issue."
5. Outbuilding Listing in NAME Block Invalid. Petitioner claims the Courts "abused discretion when principles of Groh v. Ramirez[7] and Doe v. Groody [8] were not followed."
6. Application of Maryland v. Garrison [9] Withheld. Petitioner claims this Court cited the case, but abused its discretion in neglecting to follow "the case's directives" and "counsel was ineffective" for not "argu[ing] the issue."
7. Harmless Error Standard of Chapman v. California[10] Violated. Bradley alleges a "harmless error analysis was required but denied" and that the Court "abused discretion" by "fail[ing] to acknowledge or address the validity and relevance of 'intangible evidence.'" Bradley further contends, in this respect, that "counsel was ineffective ...

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.