Summary
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the denial of Darrel Page's motion for post-conviction relief under Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The court rejected claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel, speedy-trial and defense-expert funding issues, an alleged denial of the right to a public trial during voir dire, and counsel's failure to preserve the record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court erred in denying Page's ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's acceptance and retention of the appointment despite counsel's trial calendar and the resulting delay.
- Whether the Superior Court erred in denying relief on the claim that Page's speedy-trial rights were compromised by the delay in obtaining funding for defense experts.
- Whether the Superior Court properly rejected Page's claim under Presley v. Georgia that his mother was excluded from the courtroom during voir dire.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in refusing or limiting expansion of the post-conviction record concerning the alleged courtroom exclusion.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to protect the record concerning the alleged exclusion of Page's mother.
- Whether reassignment to a different trial judge was required if the case were remanded.
Holdings
- Page's ineffective-assistance claim failed because he waived the speedy-trial objection by requesting appointment of counsel while knowing counsel's busy calendars, and, independently, he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland.
- The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Page's speedy-trial and coercion claims because Page voluntarily agreed to the continuance, counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy, and the delay would not have supported dismissal even absent the waiver.
- The Superior Court properly rejected Page's Presley-based public-trial claim because the official transcript did not establish that his mother was excluded from the courtroom.
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to ensure that the record reflected Page's mother's alleged exclusion because the trial court found, based on the record, that the exclusion did not occur.
- The request for reassignment was moot because the Court found no basis for another remand.
Key quotations
“In particular, a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.” (¶ 10)
“I don't have any reason to ban her from the courtroom.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
Page and Michael Jones participated in a drug operation led by Cedric Reinford. Jones killed Reinford and Reinford's fiancée and shot Reinford's brother during a robbery and related events; Page was convicted of three murders and several related offenses. Before trial, Page's counsel sought a continuance to obtain necessary defense experts, and Page acknowledged that the continuance would affect any speedy-trial claim. During voir dire, the trial judge instructed Page's mother to stop recording prospective jurors' names, but the official transcript did not show that she was excluded from the courtroom.
Procedural history
Page was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of first-degree murder and other offenses and received three life sentences plus a term of years. After the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Page filed a Rule 61 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related constitutional violations. Following remands, expansion of the record, an evidentiary hearing, and denial of relief by the Superior Court, Page appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.