Submitted: January 18, 2018
COMMISSIONER'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL PENDING MOTIONS FOR
POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED
Gregory E. Smith, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the
State.
Jermaine L. Carter, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware, pro se.
PARKER, COMMISSIONER
This
2nd day of February 2018, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears
to the Court that:
BACKGROUND
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. In
December 2008, Defendant Jermaine Carter was indicted on
numerous counts of first degree rape, second degree
kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of
a felony ("PFDCF"), possession of a firearm by a
person prohibited ("PFBPP") and first degree
robbery.
2. On
December 18, 2009, Carter pled guilty to first degree rape,
second degree rape, first degree robbery, PFDCF, and two
counts of second degree kidnapping. The robberies, rapes, and
other criminal conduct giving rise to the subject convictions
are detailed in the Superior Court's decision on
Carter's first Rule 61 motion.[1]
3. On
June 4, 2010, after reviewing the mental health evaluations
submitted by the parties and conducting a colloquy, the
Superior Court adjudged Carter guilty but mentally ill, and
sentenced him to life imprisonment plus an additional
forty-five years.[2]
4.
Carter did not file a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme
Court.
5. On
October 18, 2013, Carter filed a pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief. Thereafter, the court appointed
counsel to represent Carter in his postconviction
proceedings. Rule 61 counsel filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel, the State filed a response to Carter's Rule 61
motion, and the Superior Court considered briefing to be
complete and was ready to render a decision on Carter's
motion.[3]
6.
Before Carter's first Rule 61 motion was decided, on
September 21, 2015, Carter filed a second pro se
Motion for Postconviction Relief.[4] On October 13, 2015,
Carter filed another pro se Motion titled
"Amending as a matter of course."[5] Carter also
filed a memorandum of law in support of that
motion.[6] On November 4, 2015, Carter filed
another pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief,
titled "Leave to Amend."[7] On November 9, 2015,
Carter filed another pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief, titled "Leave to Amend as Justice
so Requires."[8] On February 1, 2016, Carter filed
another pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief
titled "Leave to Amend as Justice so
Requires."[9] On March 7, 2016, Carter filed another
pro se Motion for Postconviction
Relief[10], and another on April 4,
2016[11],
and another on August 22, 2016[12], and another on
January 23, 2017.[13]
7. The
Superior Court allowed supplemental briefing and afforded the
parties an opportunity to address all the claims raised in
Carter's Rule 61 motion, as amended on multiple
occasions.
8. On
February 3, 2017, the Superior Court in a full and thorough
decision denied Carter's motion for postconviction relief
and granted Rule 61 counsel's motion to
withdraw.[14] The claims raised by Carter
included:
1) ineffective assistance of counsel in the handling of the
plea offer;
2) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to file an
appeal after sentencing;
3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to supply
Carter with a copy of his Rule 16 discovery prior to
presenting the plea offer to him, and prior to sentencing;
4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to
investigate the sufficiency of the evidence; 5) guilty plea
was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and improper plea
colloquy;
6) illegal sentence because the investigative services office
failed to obtain a victim impact statement;
7) illegal search and seizure conducted by the police; and 8)
State committed prosecutorial misconduct because of a
wrongful indictment.[15]
9. The
Superior Court addressed all of these claims raised by Carter
on their merits and concluded that the claims raised by
Carter were procedurally barred and also without
merit.[16]
10.
Following the denial of Carter's Rule 61 motion, the
State filed a motion to restrict the discovery to be made
available to Carter for his appeal. The Superior Court
granted the motion and the restricted discovery required to
be disseminated to Carter was thereafter provided.[17] It does not
appear, however, ...