State v. Bordley

Summary

The Delaware Superior Court grants Daiquan Bordley’s motion for postconviction relief. The court concludes that trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient advice by recommending a bench trial based on counsel’s asserted social relationship with the trial judge, thereby improperly influencing Bordley’s waiver of his right to a jury trial. The court rejects the Commissioner’s contrary report after conducting de novo review.

Holdings

1. The Commissioner incorrectly conflated Rule 61(i)(3)'s procedural-default requirements with the Strickland analysis, and the Superior Court therefore rejected that portion of the report and conducted its own de novo analysis.
2. Trial counsel provided objectively unreasonable assistance by advising Bordley to waive a jury trial because counsel's social relationship with the trial judge would allegedly produce favorable rulings. Bordley established prejudice because, absent that advice, there was a reasonable probability he would have exercised his right to a jury trial.
3. Trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to introduce the cooperation agreements of two key codefendant witnesses based on the mistaken belief that the bench-trial judge could consider the agreements outside the trial record. Bordley established prejudice because there was a reasonable probability that further impeachment of the witnesses would have affected the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commissioner's report and recommendation applied an incorrect legal standard by conflating Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3)'s procedural-default requirements with the Strickland ineffective-assistance analysis.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising Bordley to waive his constitutional right to a jury trial based on counsel's alleged social relationship with the trial judge and the prospect of favorable rulings.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to introduce cooperation agreements that could have impeached two key codefendant witnesses.

Disposition

granted