Cabrera v. State

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cabrera's standalone Batson claim based on defense peremptory strikes was procedurally barred and waived.
2. Whether counsel was ineffective for exercising race-based peremptory strikes without Cabrera demonstrating prejudice under Strickland.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the gun seized from Cabrera's father's residence after the father consented to the search and seizure.
4. Whether late disclosure of belt-buckle and expert evidence violated due process or supported ineffective-assistance claims.
5. Whether the State's refusal to grant immunity to a recanting witness and counsel's handling of that witness supported postconviction relief.
6. Whether the exclusion of prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty violated Cabrera's rights.
7. Whether the Allen charge was coercive or constitutionally defective and whether counsel was ineffective regarding the charge.
8. Whether alleged Brady violations, juror misconduct or incompetence, and denial of juror interviews warranted relief.
9. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying additional postconviction discovery.

Holdings

1. A defendant who participated in exercising the challenged strikes and did not object at trial or on direct appeal waived the right to challenge those defense strikes in a later postconviction proceeding; the claim was procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3) and did not satisfy the fundamental-fairness exception.
2. Even assuming a defense Batson violation, a defendant raising the alleged violation through an ineffective-assistance claim for the first time in postconviction proceedings must demonstrate prejudice under Strickland.
3. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress a gun voluntarily turned over by the owner's father after he consented to the search of his residence and removal of the gun.
4. The late-disclosure claim was barred because it had been litigated and rejected on direct appeal, and the related ineffective-assistance claims failed because counsel objected, obtained a recess, presented rebuttal expert testimony, and made a reasonable strategic decision not to pursue a Daubert motion.
5. The State's refusal to grant Mathis immunity and the related ineffective-assistance claims did not warrant relief; the immunity issue had been previously litigated, and counsel's investigation and handling of Mathis were not constitutionally deficient.
6. The claim challenging exclusion of prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty was procedurally barred, and the exclusion was consistent with Delaware law because the jurors stated they could not recommend a death sentence.
7. The challenges to the Allen charge were procedurally barred or previously adjudicated, and counsel was not ineffective because the charge was noncoercive and the defendant was not required to be present at a conference concerning a question of law.
8. The alleged Brady violations and related ineffective-assistance claims did not warrant relief because some claims had been decided previously, some evidence was not favorable or exculpatory, and the record did not establish the existence or materiality of the alleged undisclosed information.
9. The claims concerning three allegedly biased or incompetent jurors were procedurally barred and meritless, and the Superior Court properly denied permission to interview the jurors because Cabrera failed to show good cause based on new information or possible extraneous influence.
10. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional postconviction discovery because Cabrera failed to show the particularized good cause required at the postconviction stage.

Key quotations

Factual background

In January 1996, Brandon Saunders and Vaughn Rowe were killed execution-style in Wilmington's Rockford Park. Investigators developed evidence linking Cabrera and his codefendant Luis Reyes to the murders, including a gun seized from Cabrera's father's residence and belt-buckle evidence that the State connected to injuries on one victim. Cabrera was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to death, although the Superior Court later vacated the death sentence based on ineffective assistance during the penalty phase.

Procedural history

A Superior Court jury convicted Cabrera of two counts of first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced him to death. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Cabrera later sought postconviction relief; in 2015, the Superior Court vacated the death sentence based on ineffective assistance during the penalty phase but denied the remaining claims. Cabrera appealed the denial of the remaining claims, and the Supreme Court affirmed.