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. Tisinger

Superior Court of Delaware

April 2, 2019

STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
DOMINIQUE TISINGER, Defendant.

          Submitted: February 15, 2019

         Upon the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation that Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion for Default Judgment Should Be Denied, ADOPTED.

          Dominique Tisinger, Wilmington, Delaware. Self-represented Defendant.

          Mark A Denney, Esquire and Erika R. Flaschner, Esq., Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for the State.

          Cathy Johnson, Esquire

          ORDER

          VIVIAN L. MEDINILLA JUDGE

         AND NOW TO WIT, this 2nd day of April, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant Dominique Tisinger ("Defendant")'s September 25, 2017 Motion for Postconviction Relief, Defendant's October 10, 2018 Motion for Default Judgment, the Commissioner's February 1, 2019 Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion for Default Judgment ("Commissioner's Report"), [1] the sentence imposed upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

         1. On June 7, 2016, in a non-jury trial, the Court found Defendant guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited ("PFBPP"), Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited ("PABPP"), Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon ("CCDW"), Resisting Arrest, and Attempted Escape Third Degree.[2]

         2. Defendant was sentenced on October 7, 2016 to ten years at supervision Level V on the PFBPP offense.[3] For the other offenses, Defendant was sentenced to supervision at Level IV and various levels of probation.[4] Defendant's sentences of confinement are to run consecutive.

         3. On September 15, 2016, this Court denied both Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or Alternatively a New Trial and his request for an Evidentiary Hearing and Appointment of Counsel for Judgment of Acquittal.[5] On April 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal as untimely.[6]

         4. Defendant filed this Motion for Postconviction Relief on September 25, 2017.[7] His motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner[8] for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in accordance with 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62.[9] The Commissioner issued a briefing schedule and received responses from Trial Counsel and the State by February 20, 2018.[10] The State's response was untimely. The Commissioner granted Defendant's request for an extension of time to file his reply.[11] On May 3, 2018, Defendant filed his Reply to the State's Response.[12] The Commissioner ordered additional briefing from both Trial Counsel and the State that extended certain briefing deadlines.[13] On October 10, 2018, Defendant filed a "Motion for Default Judgment" seeking relief due to the State's untimely filing of its Response and the supplemental filing from Trial Counsel.[14] The State and Trial Counsel filed amended responses by October 26, 2018.[15] Defendant filed his reply brief on November 5, 2018.[16]

         5. The Commissioner issued his Report and Recommendation on February 1, 2019, advising the Court to deny Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, including Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and to deny his Motion for Default Judgment.[17] Defendant did not file any objections to the Commissioner's Report.

         6. Rule 62(a)(5) permits the Court to refer case-dispositive motions, including postconviction relief motions, to a Superior Court Commissioner for "proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge, of any such matter."[18] After the Commissioner issues her report, "any party may serve and file written objections" to the report within ten days.[19] A party failing to comply with this ten-day time limit for appeal may foreclose that party's ability to object to the Commissioner's report.[20]

         7. Defendant has not filed any objections or appeal from the Commissioner's Report. The Court has undergone a careful review of Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, Defendant's Motion for Default Judgment, the Commissioner's Report, and the record. After this review, the Court adopts in toto the findings of fact and recommendations in the Commissioner's Report. For the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report, ...


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.