Burglary 2nd (F)
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
Stephen E. Smith, Esq., Department of Justice, for the State
K. Gumaneh, Pro se.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M Freud, Commissioner
defendant, Amara K. Gumaneh ("Gumaneh") pled guilty
on October 17, 2013 to one count of Burglary in the Second
Degree, 11 Del. C. § 825. As part of the plea
nolle prosequis were entered on the remaining
charges of Theft of Firearm, Theft $ 1, 500 or >,
Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Criminal Mischief < $
1, 000. The parties recommended that Gumaneh be sentenced to
eight years at Level V, suspended after serving one year
minimum mandatory for eighteen months probation. The Court
sentenced him in accordance with the parties recommendation.
Had Gumaneh gone to trial and been convicted as charged he
faced a far greater period of incarceration.
did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware
Supreme Court. Instead he filed a motion for postconviction
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Court
signed an order requesting that the Office of Conflicts
Counsel appoint counsel for Gumaneh. While the motion was in
briefing Gumaneh filed a "Motion for Correction of an
Illegal Sentence." This Court denied the motion and
Gumaneh appealed to the State Supreme Court. Consequently the
Rule 61 motion was stayed pending the Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court ultimately denied Gumaneh's appeal.
After reviewing the file, Appointed Counsel determined that
there were no meritorious grounds for relief and filed a
Motion to Withdraw Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule
61(e)(2) with a supporting Memorandum. The memorandum
detailed his review of the case and Gumaneh's arguments.
The Court granted Appointed Counsel's Motion to Withdraw.
Gumaneh did not file any response to the motion to withdraw
or present any additional grounds for relief. Gumaneh's
original counsel and the State responded to Gumaneh's
pro se motion.
charges stemmed from a residential burglary in January 2013
in Magnolia, Delaware. The victim was a federal agent.
Gumaneh was identified as a suspect after he arranged to meet
an undercover police officer to sell items taken in the
burglary. A valid search warrant was executed by the police
for Gumaneh's cell phone on which evidence was found
indicating that he had actively participated in the burglary.
Gumaneh's pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief, he raises three grounds for relief as
summarized by Appointed Counsel:
Ground one: Ineffective assistance of counsel.
Movant asserts a general claim for ineffective assistance of
counsel by asserting that Movant was denied a defense
attorney 'who knows the relevant laws, does not have any
conflicts in the case at hand, adheres to all legal
procedural requirements, so as to now forfeit any rights and
vigorously pursues a client's case at trial, through
direct and cross examination, the filing of motions and the
raising of objections.'
Ground two: Violation of Constitutional Rights. Movant
asserts that his Constitutional Rights were violated by
defense counsel's failure to file a Motion to Suppress
the search of the cell phone.
Ground three: Lack of Indictment. Movant asserts that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel due to a delay in
the Indictment being filed against the Movant and ...