Summary
The Delaware Superior Court issued an order addressing the defendant's objections to a Commissioner's Report and Recommendation in a criminal case. The court determined that further evidentiary context is required to evaluate the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea advice versus trial exposure, citing Lafler v. Cooper. Consequently, the court ordered an evidentiary hearing to be conducted directly by the judge rather than remanding the matter. The parties are directed to prepare evidence concerning the specific advice given by trial counsel and its impact on the defendant's decision-making.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to address Bergholz’s third objection concerning alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Lafler v. Cooper.
Holdings
- The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as practical to address the issues surrounding Mr. Bergholz’s third objection.
Key quotations
“The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as practical to address the issues surrounding Mr. Bergholz’s third objection.”
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Factual background
Richard Bergholz was convicted of a third DUI offense. He objected to the Commissioner’s Report, asserting that trial counsel misadvised him about the risks of proceeding to trial versus pleading. He raised a Lafler v. Cooper claim that ineffective assistance of counsel affected his decision. The Court found the affidavit of trial counsel insufficient to resolve the issue.
Procedural history
The Superior Court reviewed the Commissioner’s Report, the defendant’s three objections—including a Lafler v. Cooper issue—and determined that additional evidentiary context was required before ruling on the third objection.
Remand instructions
The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as practical to address the issues surrounding Mr. Bergholz’s third objection.