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. Ortiz

Superior Court of Delaware

September 10, 2018

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
JOEL ORTIZ Defendant.

          Submitted: August 24, 2018

         COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED

          Zachary D. Rosen, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

          Joel Ortiz, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, Delaware, pro se.

          Katharine L. Mayer, Commissioner.

         This 10th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, it appears to the Court that:

         BACKGROUND, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On May 15, 2017, Joel M. Ortiz ("Defendant") was indicted on two counts of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited ("PFBPP"), Possession of a Firearm with an Obliterated or Altered Serial Number, and Possession of Marijuana.

         At the time the charges were incurred, Defendant was on probation and had been in "absconder" status for approximately two (2) years. According to the reports, the Wilmington Police Department (the "WPD") received information from the ATF Task Force ("ATF") that a reliable confidential informant reported Defendant selling drugs out of his former residence. The WPD obtained a warrant, went to the home, and Defendant's father answered the door and gave consent to search. A search of the home led to a room belonging to Defendant, and in that room the WPD found marijuana and a firearm.

         On September 19, 2017, Defendant was convicted of all indicted charges after a non-jury bench trial. Defendant was then sentenced to a minimum of five (5) years at Level V incarceration followed by decreasing levels of supervision.

         On June 6, 2018, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief (the "Motion").[1] Upon preliminary consideration of the Motion, the Court issued an order expanding the record and directing Defendant's former counsel ("Trial Counsel") to file an Affidavit in response, but denied Defendant's request for appointment of counsel.[2]

         Defendant's Motion presents the following arguments:

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Defendant's first argument is that counsel performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a probability that [but] for his unprofessional errors [the] results would have been different.
Due Process Violation: Due process Clause of the United States is violated [and must] ensure that criminal justice decisions are based ...

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.