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. Hughes

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

June 29, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
ANTONIO HUGHES, Defendant.

          RK1 6-06-0081-01 Child Abuse 2nd (F) RK16-06-0082-01 End. Welf. Child (M)

         Upon 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

          ANDREA M FREUD COMMISSIONER.

         The 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.

         HUGHES' CONTENTIONS

         In his 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 evidence.
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 ...

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.