Submitted: November 5, 2018
AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
A. Denney, Esq., and Erika R. Flaschner, Esq., Attorneys for
Johnson, Esq., Trial Counsel for Defendant.
Dominique Tisinger, pro se.
BRADLEY V. MANNING, JUDGE. 
1st day of February 2019, upon consideration of
defendant Dominique Tisinger's Motion for Postconviction
Relief ("Motion"), I find and recommend the
and Procedural History
Tisinger ("Defendant") was convicted in the
Superior Court following a non-jury trial on June 7, 2016, of
Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Firearm
by a Person Prohibited, Possession of Ammunition by a Person
Prohibited and Resisting Arrest. Defendant was also convicted
of the charge Attempted Escape in the Third
Degree. Defendant was sentenced on October 7,
2016, to a total often years and six months of unsuspended
level five incarceration, followed by decreasing levels of
probation. Defendant filed a motion for modification of
sentence that was denied by this Court on March 7, 2017.
Defendant subsequently appealed his convictions to the
Delaware Supreme Court. However, the appeal was dismissed as
untimely on May 10, 2017.
September 25, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 6l. The Motion
was subsequently referred to the undersigned judicial officer
and a briefing schedule was issued. Trial Counsel filed an
Affidavit responding to the claims made by Defendant on
December 12, 2017. The State filed its Response on
February 19, 2018. On May 1, 2018, the Court received a
letter from Defendant. Although not captioned as such, I
considered this letter as Defendant's Reply to the
State's Response. After review of the various pleadings,
I deemed it unnecessary to hold an evidentiary hearing based
on the nature of Defendant's allegations. However, I did
order additional briefing instructing the parties to address
why a motion to suppress was never filed in light of the
Delaware Supreme Court's holding in Jones v.
State, 745 A.2d 856 (Del.1999). Defendant filed a
Motion for Default Judgment on October 10, 2018, and a Reply
to the State and Defense Counsel's supplemental
submissions on November 5, 2018.
facts of the case, as summarized from the Affidavit of
Probable Cause, Defense Counsel's Amended Response and
the State's Response, are as follows:
On October 12, 2015, Wilmington Police received a 911 call
from a citizen who alleged that an armed man was following
her, waving a gun in her face and threatening her life. The
caller's voice was described as raised, erratic and
highly agitated due to the display of a gun and threats. The
caller informed police of her location, which was at the Auto
Zone. Police responded to the call and received additional
information from a concerned citizen at the Auto Zone. The
citizen stated that the subject was a black male wearing a
black hooded jacket and white jeans and was walking with a
white male on Lancaster Avenue. Police checked the area and
observed Defendant wearing the same clothing and walking with
a white male on Lancaster Avenue. When police pulled up in a
marked police car alongside Defendant, Defendant immediately
put his right hand into the right pocket of his jacket.
Police ordered the Defendant to stop and show his hands,
whereupon he immediately fled. As Defendant ran away, he
threw a gun to the ground within ten feet from Officer Pruitt
who observed the Defendant remove the gun from his person and
throw it. Defendant was apprehended shortly thereafter by
other nearby officers. After being arrested, Defendant
attempted to escape from the custody of Officer Reddick.
claims for postconviction relief, quoted verbatim, are as
Ground One: Ineffective assistance of
counsel/incompetent counsel. Every motion filed on my behalf
was done pro se, including the appeal. I requested my lawyer
to file a suppression motion which she never did and I
contacted the judge about it, Judge Jurden.
Ground Two: Denial of the right to confront
witnesses/6th Amendment right. There were two 911
calls and an officer met with an unidentified person and
their statements were admitted into evidence under the
exception to hearsay rule under the excited utterances
Ground Three: Suppression of favorable evidence. At
trial I was informed that the handgun that was retrieved had
finger prints (DNA) on it that did not match to me. That
evidence would have been favorable in a suppression hearing.
Ground Four: Officer Reddick gave and submitted a
police report then got on the stand at trial and he
didn't remember none of the events that he reported.
Also, officer Reddick was charged with Second Degree Arson
and providing false statements and other charges but was ...