ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING DEFENDANT'S SFXTH
MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
M. Parker Commissioner
29th day of January, 2018, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, Motion of
Postconviction Relief Memorandum, and the exhibits attached
to the Motion of Postconviction Relief Memorandum
(collectively, the "Sixth Rule 61 Motion") filed by
Defendant Darrel Page; the facts and legal authorities set
forth in the Fifth Rule 61 Motion; and the entire record in
Sentencing, and Appeal
June 17, 2003, after a trial by jury, Mr. Page was convicted
of three counts of Murder in the First Degree, one count of
Robbery Second Degree, one count of Conspiracy First Degree,
one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and various
weapons charges. On February 24, 2006, this Court sentenced
Mr. Page to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole for each count of Murder in the First Degree.
Page appealed his convictions and sentence to the Supreme
Court of Delaware. In the appeal, Mr. Page was represented by
counsel separate from his trial counsel. Mr. Page contended
that (i) the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial; (ii) he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial; and (iii) the trial judge erred in
admitting certain evidence-photographs, crime scene video,
and a video of an out-of-court statement to police by Kim
Still, a State witness.
an Opinion dated October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed
Mr. Page's convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court
held that Mr. Page was not denied his right to a speedy
trial, and that this Court did not err or abuse its
discretion in admitting the photographs and videos. The
Supreme Court, however, did not address Mr. Page's
ineffective assistance of counsel claims because that
argument had not yet been considered by this Court.
Motion for Postconviction Relief
November 30, 2016, Mr. Page, acting pro se, filed
his fifth motion for postconviction relief (the "Fifth
Rule 61 Motion"). In the Fifth Rule 61 Motion, Mr. Page
asserted claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Specifically, this time, Mr. Page claims ineffective
assistance of counsel based on appellate counsels'
purported failure to request and obtain ten days of trial
transcripts when preparing Mr. Page's appeal. The Fifth
Rule 61 Motion claimed that this purported failure also
resulted in due process, equal protection, and speedy trial
June 8, 2017, this Court summarily dismissed the Fifth Rule
61 Motion as untimely and repetitive. In addition, the Court
specifically addressed Mr. Page's arguments regarding the
purported failure by appellate counsel to request and obtain
trial transcripts. Mr. Page appealed the Court's
decision. On September 6, 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed
the Court's decision. The Supreme Court issued its
mandate on September 26, 2017.
and Pending Motion for Postconviction Relief
Before the Court is Mr. Page's Sixth Rule 61 Motion. Mr.
Page, acting pro se, filed the Fifth Rule 61 Motion
on January 25, 2018. In the Sixth Rule 61 Motion, Mr. Page
claims, once again, that he is entitled to postconviction
relief based on ineffective assistance of his appellate
basis for the present ineffective assistance of counsel claim
once again stems from appellate counsels' response to Mr.
Page's pro se motion to compel, which Mr. Page
filed on April 13, 2016. In the motion, Mr. Page sought to
compel his appellate counsel-James Liguori, Esquire and
Gregory Morris, Esquire of the law firm of Liguori &
Morris ("Liguori & Morris") and Joseph Lawless,
Esquire-to produce Mr. Page's case file. By letter dated
May 25, 2016, Liguori & Morris informed the Court that
its office, which had acted as local counsel for Mr. Lawless,
had provided the case file and all relevant documents in its
possession to Mr. Page. However, Liguori & Morris did not
have the trial transcripts in Mr. Page's case because the
transcripts were forwarded to Mr. Lawless. Mr. Lawless no
longer practices law, and despite Liguori & Morris'
best efforts, it could not locate Mr. Lawless or the trial
transcripts. Based upon this explanation, the Court denied
the motion on September 15, 2016. The Fifth Rule 61 Motion
asserting ineffective assistance of counsel against Liguori
& Morris followed.
December 15, 2016, the Court directed Liguori & Morris to
submit an affidavit in response to the Fifth Rule 61 Motion.
On January 13, 2017, Liguori & Morris filed the Prior
Counsel Affidavit, restating that it did not provide
ineffective assistance of counsel because it had in fact
requested and obtained trial transcripts.
Page now contends that his appellate counsel's Prior
Counsel Affidavit is factually incorrect. Mr. Page attaches
documents that he contends demonstrates that his appellate
counsel failed to request three (3) days of trial
transcripts-May 5, 6, and 7, 2003. As support, Mr. Page
states that "Exhibit B on page 17 (included)"
provides that appellate counsel only requested the
following-"All proceedings from February 16, ...