Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Ingram

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

June 28, 2018


          RK1 2-11-0356-01 RK1 2-11-0357-01 Robbery 1st (F) RK12-11-0361-01 PFDCF (F) RK12-11-0368-01 Conspiracy 2nd (F) RK12-11-0083 Resist Arrest (M)

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

          Marie O. Graham, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.

          Natalie S. Woloshin, Esquire, Woloshin, Lynch & Associates, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for Defendant.



         The defendant, Orlando Ingram[1] ("Ingram"), was initially indicted in a 48 count indictment in December 2012 for his alleged participation in a veritable Robbery crime wave, involving multiple armed robberies of small businesses in the Dover, Delaware area. The robberies occurred in August and September 2012. Following the final robbery which occurred on September 4, 2012, Ingram's co-defendants were apprehended while fleeing the scene. Although the police saw three suspects fleeing the scene Ingram was able to avoid capture at the time. Following the arrest of Ingram's co-defendants, the day of the Robbery, one of the suspects told the police that Ingram was the third suspect who had gotten away from the police. Additionally the police recovered an unopened pack of Newport cigarettes, which the victims had told the police had been taken by the robbers, along the path that the third suspect had fled. After a forensic exam Ingram's fingerprints were identified on the Newport cigarette pack. Based on these facts the police developed Ingram as the final suspect in the Robbery spree. Armed with a search warrant the Dover Police arrested Ingram on September 27, 2012 after Ingram resisted arrest and was found with a loaded firearm similar to the one the victims identified as being used in the robbery. Included in the 48 count indictment were seven counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited. Ingram's counsel filed a written Motion to Sever these charges from the remaining counts. The Court granted the motion prior to trial.

         On the morning that trial was set to begin, November 18, 2013, on the remaining 41 counts, the State made an oral motion to sever out the counts related to the September 4, 2012 robbery and the counts relating to Ingram's September 27, 2012 arrest on the robbery charges and to proceed to trial only on those counts and not the remaining robbery counts.[2]

         The Court and counsel discussed the motion and Ingram's counsel stated that he did not oppose the motion and that Ingram has the same position as he did based upon the fact that Ingram was eligible to be sentenced as an habitual offender and would be subject to a very lengthy mandatory sentence if found guilty of only one of the Robbery counts. Trial Counsel felt it would be better for the jury not to be bombarded with the testimony that Ingram was allegedly involved in multiple robberies in one trial.[3] The Court also asked Ingram if he agreed and he replied that he did.[4]

         Next the Court heard testimony on Ingram's Motion to Suppress evidence from his arrest on September 27, 2012. Following the hearing the Court denied the motion and the trial immediately commenced. The jury found Ingram guilty as charged of two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 832; one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, 11 Del. C. § 1447A; one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 512; and one count of Resisting Arrest, 11 Del. C § 1257.

         On December 5, 2013 the State moved to declare Ingram an Habitual Offender. After several continuances of his sentencing Ingram was declared an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) on January 30, 2014 and sentenced to a total sentence of seventy-five years Level V incarceration followed by probation. In May 2014 Ingram was tried on one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited relating to his arrest on September 27, 2012. And was found guilty and given twenty-five years incarceration. Following the sentencing the State entered nolle prosequis on the remaining Robbery related counts, without prejudice due to Ingram's having received a total of 100 years in jail following the two trials.

         A timely Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court was filed. Ingram's 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 Ingram of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and attached a copy of the motion to withdraw and accompanying brief. Ingram was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Ingram, pro se, raised two issues for appeal for the Supreme Court to consider, which the Supreme Court classified as follows:

(11) In his written submission, Ingram argues that the Superior Court erred when admitting the gun and the cigarette pack into evidence at trial. Ingram contends that the State failed to sufficiently authenticate the gun by demonstrating that the gun recovered on September 27, 2012 was associated with the robbery on September 4, 2012. Ingram contends that the State failed to prove that the pack of Newports recovered from the bike path was one of those stolen from the Family Dollar store.[5]

         The Supreme Court granted the State's motion to affirm as to all of Ingram's claims.[6] Next, pro se, Ingram filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 on May 7, 2015 and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel which the Court granted. Subsequently, Natalie S. Woloshin, Esquire ("Appointed Counsel") was appointed to represent Ingram in his motion. She filed an amended motion for Postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on March 16, 2017 and requested an evidentiary hearing. My review of the facts and the law lead me to conclude that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary in this case. Ingram's Trial Counsel and the State responded to the amended motion for postconviction relief and Appointed Counsel filed a response.


         The following is a summary of the facts as noted by the Supreme Court in its opinion on Ingram's direct appeal:

(1) On September 4, 2012, three black males - two adults and one teenager - robbed the Baycourt Plaza Family Dollar store in Dover, Delaware. One adult wore a black ski mask. The other adult wore a t-shirt tied around the lower half of his face and had a gun. The teenager did not wear a mask.
(2) Two female employees, a store cashier and a manager, were in the store at the time of the robbery. The gunman ordered the cashier to open the cash registers. When she could not, the man in the black ski mask ordered her to the floor, and the gunman ordered the manager to open the cash registers. Meanwhile, the teenage boy removed packs of Newport cigarettes and Swisher cigars from a cabinet behind the front counter. When leaving the store, the three suspects fled down a nearby bike path, taking with them the cash from the cash registers, nearly three dozen packs of Newport, and several cigars. The store manager immediately called 911.
(3) Within minutes of the 911 dispatch, Dover Police apprehended two suspects in the area of the bike path. The police also recovered from the bike path a black ski mask, a pack of unopened Newports, two one dollar bills, and a tee-shirt. When the items were processed for fingerprints, a thumbprint located on the cigarette pack was matched to the appellant, Orlando Ingram.
(4) The police obtained an arrest warrant for Ingram and arrested him on September 27, 2012, after tracking him to his sister's apartment in Dover. Before executing the arrest warrant, the police made contact with Ingram's sister, Lutricia Ingram, who confirmed that Ingram was inside her apartment. Ingram put up a fight when the police entered the apartment to arrest him. When struggling with the police, Ingram made repeated attempts to reach for a gun under the couch. After Ingram was subdued and taken into custody, Lutricia Ingram gave the police written consent to search the apartment.
(5) Ingram was indicted on two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commissioner of a Felony ("PFDCF"), one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree in connection with the robbery of the Family Dollar store on September 4, 2012. Ingram was also charged with one count of ...

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.