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. Wilson

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

June 19, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
JAMES A. WILSON, Defendant.

          Submitted: May 3, 2018

         RK13-04-0770-01 Assault 2nd (F), RK13-04-0772-01 Police Signal (F), RK13-04-0779-01 Dr. Right Side (V), RK13-04-0780-01 Red-Veh Stop (V), RK13-04-0781-01 Unsafe Speed (V)

         Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61

          ORDER

          JEFFREY J. CLARK, JUDGE

         Upon consideration of Defendant James A. Wilson's ("Mr. Wilson's") Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), Mr. Wilson's appeal, the State's response and the record in this case, it appears that:

         1. Mr. Wilson was found guilty, following a jury trial on March 9, 2016 of one count of Assault in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 612; one count of Disregarding a Police Signal, 21 Del. C. § 4103; one count of Driving on the Wrong Side of the Roadway, 21 Del. C. § 4114; one count of Failure to Stop at a Red Light, 21 Del. C. § 4108; and one count of Driving at an Unreasonable Speed, 21 Del. C. § 4168.

         2. On April 18, 2016, the State filed a motion to declare Mr. Wilson to be an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Prior to and at sentencing, Mr. Wilson and his attorney agreed that his prior criminal record qualified him to be sentenced as an habitual offender. Nevertheless, the State and the defense jointly requested to declare Mr. Wilson to be an habitual offender with respect to the charge of Disregarding a Police Officer Signal and not on the Assault charge. Therefore, on September 13, 2016, the Court sentenced Mr. Wilson to a total of seven years incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of probation.

         3. Mr. Wilson then filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. His Appellate Counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c). In the motion to withdraw, Appellate Counsel represented that he conducted a conscientious review of the record and concluded that no meritorious issues existed. By letter, counsel informed Mr. Wilson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and attached a copy of the motion to withdraw and his accompanying brief. Mr. Wilson was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. He, pro se, then raised five issues in his appeal to the Supreme Court. Those issues were in large part the same issues he raises in the present motion.

         4. After the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment, [1] Mr. Wilson filed his initial postconviction motion on June 12, 2017, and a supplement thereafter. In the interim, Mr. Wilson appealed the Superior Court's denial of his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. On August 25, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed that appeal as interlocutory.[2] Next, on November 6, 2017, Mr. Wilson filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence. This Court denied it on December 1, 2017.[3]

         5. After briefing, the Commissioner considered Mr. Wilson's Rule 61 motion. In her Report, she recommended that the Court deny it. The Court has reviewed the Report, the record, and has also considered Mr. Wilson's appeal challenging the Report. His appeal raises no new issues.

         NOW, THEREFORE, after a de novo review of the record in this action, review of the Report, and considering Mr. Wilson's appeal challenging the Report;

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation attached as Exhibit "A" is adopted by the Court in its entirety. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson's Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 is DENIED.

         Exhibit A

         COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         February 14, 2018

         Gregory R. Babowal, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.

         James A. Wilson, Pro se

          FREUD, Commissioner

         The defendant, James A. Wilson ("Wilson"), was found guilty on March 9, 2016 by a jury of one count of Assault in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 612; one count of Disregarding a Police Signal, 21 Del. C. § 4103; one count of Driving on the Wrong Side of the Roadway, 21 Del. C. § 4114; and one count of Failure to Stop at a Red Light, 21 Del. C. § 4108; and one count of Driving at an Unreasonable Speed, 21 Del. C. § 4168. An Investigative Services Office report was ordered. On April 18, 2016 the State filed a motion to declare Wilson an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a). Prior to and at sentencing, Wilson and his attorney agreed that his prior criminal record qualified him to be sentenced as an habitual offender. The State and the defense made a joint request to the court to sentence Wilson under the habitual statute only on the charge of Disregarding a Police Officer Signal and not on the Assault charge. The Court granted the State's motion and declared Wilson an habitual offender. On September 13, 2016 Wilson was sentenced to a total of seven years incarceration, two of which were as an habitual offender followed by probation.

         A timely Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court was filed. Wilson's Appellate Counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c). In the motion to withdraw, Appellate Counsel represented that he conducted a conscientious review of the record and concluded that no meritorious issues existed. By letter, counsel informed Wilson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and attached a copy of the motion to withdraw and accompanying brief. Wilson was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Wilson, pro se, raised five issues for appeal for the Supreme Court to consider, which the Supreme Court summarized as follows:

(5) Wilson raises five issues in response to his counsel's Rule 26(c) brief on appeal. First, he contends that his arrest was illegal because the search warrant did not authorize his seizure outside of the Many Things Building. Second, Wilson asserts that evidence was insufficient to prove second degree assault because the jury acquitted him of PDWCF. Third, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove a felony charge of disregarding an officer's signal. Fourth, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove second degree assault because he lacked the requisite state of mind. Finally, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. Because ...

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.