Submitted: April 22, 2016
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
S. Taylor, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware
Department of Justice, 820 N. French St. 7th Floor,
Wilmington, DE, 19801. Attorney for the State.
Natalie S. Woloshin, Esquire, 3200 Concord Pike, PO Box 7329,
Wilmington, DE 19803. Attorney for Defendant.
A. Binard, pro se.
BRADLEY V. MANNING, COMMISSIONER
24th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of
defendant Zakuon A. Binaird's motion for postconviction
relief ("Motion"), I find and recommend the
Binaird pled guilty on April 16, 2015, to one count of Drug
Dealing Heroin, a Class C felony. Mr. Binaird was sentenced
to ten years at Level V, suspended after one year, for 18
months at Level III probation, with credit
for 197 days previously served. Mr. Binaird, with the assistance
of counsel, then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea
on June 4, 2015. After briefing and argument, The Honorable
Vivian L. Medinilla issued her decision denying Mr.
Binaird's motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. Mr. Binaird's counsel then filed a
motion for Reargument on January 29, 2016. While that motion
was pending, on April 13, 2016, Mr. Binaird, acting pro
se, filed the instant motion for postconviction relief
against his then counsel, Ms. Woloshin. That motion was
referred to the undersigned Commissioner on April 22, 2016.
On April 26, 2016, Judge Medinilla denied Mr. Binaird's
Motion for Reargument. A scheduling order as to Mr. Binaird's
motion for postconviction relief was issue on April 28, 2016.
However, at the request of Mr. Binaird, the pending motion
for postconviction relief was stayed on May 11, 2016, so he
could pursue an appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court with the
assistance of Ms. Woloshin. On January 18, 2017, the Delaware
Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment
against Mr. Binaird on the basis of and for the reasons
stated in Judge Medinilla's decisions.
facts surrounding Mr. Binaird's crimes are not relevant
to deciding his claims and need not be recited here. Based
upon my review of Mr. Binaird's Motion I do not see the
need for an evidentiary hearing, nor for additional briefing.
The arguments made by Mr. Binaird in his Motion can be fully
addressed with the factual record created by the pleadings
and other information currently available in the Court's
Binaird's claims for postconviction relief, quoted
verbatim, are as follows:
Ground One: Ineffective [Assistance of] Counsel;
failing to investing chemist Phillips.
Ground Two: Ineffective [Assistance of] Counsel;
coerced to take ...