6-06-0081-01 Child Abuse 2nd (F) RK16-06-0082-01 End. Welf.
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
Gregory R. Babowal, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General,
Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.
Antonio Hughes, Pro se.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M FREUD COMMISSIONER.
defendant, Antonio Hughes ("Hughes"), pled guilty
on October 25, 2016 to one count of one count of Child Abuse
in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 1103, and
one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, 11 Del.
C. § 1102. In exchange for the plea the State
entered a nolle prosequi for the remaining count of
Assault in the Second Degree. As part of the plea the parties
recommended that Hughes be immediately sentenced to a total
of three years incarceration suspended after ninety days
followed by one year of probation. The Court agreed with the
recommendation and sentenced Hughes accordingly and gave him
credit for time served. The charges involved Hughes causing
physical harm to his three year old son. Hughes did not
appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme
Court. Instead he filed, pro se, the instant motion
for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal
Rule 61 on August 28, 2017.
motion, he raises the following grounds for relief:
Ground one: Brady Rule,
During the investigation my phone records were seized from
the week before the day I was arrested; which was May 8,
2016. Majority of the dialogue included in those
conversations in which I spoke with numerous people including
my baby mother, her parents, and my parents, were about me
accepting Child Abuse and Endangering the Welfare of Child
charges in order to keep my son out of CPS. I decided to
accept the charges because I was under emotional distress
after doing so much to be in my sons life and on the verge of
losing him, also nobody was coming forward and CPS was
threatening to take my son. Prosecution neglected to add that
exculpatory evidence which was an affirmative demonstration
of my innocence.
Ground two: Materiality under Brady: "Bagley Rule."
With that Brady material there was reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the court, the
result of the proceedings would have been different. In
regards to the three elements of the Bagley Rule (1) The
evidence was favorable to me because it was exculpatory (2)
the evidence was suppressed by the state willfully because
there's no possible way for them not to have heard these
conversations of me accepting responsibility of these
charges, in addition, the conversations they did include in
the discovery left out the parts that were mentioned about me
accepting those charges and (3) Prejudice must have ensued
for them to intentionally neglect to produce exculpatory
Ground three: Delaware rules for proffesional (sic) conduct:
Rule 3.8 special responsibilities of Prosecutor.
Subsection (d)(l & (2) states, in summary, when new
credible and material evidence and/or information is
discovered which shows a defendant innocent of a charge, the
prosecutor has to disclose that information to the defendant
and the court in a timely fashion, unless a court authorized
a dely. Therefor, instead of the prosecution seeking justice,
the prosecutor sought an easy victory which was not fair to
neither me nor the victim. Consequently, I entered a guilty
plea around October of 2016 ...