Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Michael T. Washington’s first motion for postconviction relief and its grant of postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Court rejected Washington’s ineffective-assistance claims concerning the admission and handling of witness statements and other evidence, finding no deficient performance or resulting prejudice. The Court also held that several prosecutorial-misconduct and evidentiary claims were procedurally barred or waived.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression or exclusion of statements and testimony from Isaiah Fields and William Coleman under Delaware Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b) and 11 Del. C. § 3507.
- Whether Washington overcame Rule 61's procedural bars by alleging that the prosecutor failed to disclose or misrepresented the possibility of sentencing leniency for witness Christopher Waterman.
- Whether claims concerning the prosecutor's robbery theory, forensic testimony, and alleged misstatements were procedurally barred or waived because they were not properly raised below or on appeal.
- Whether counsel was ineffective or Washington suffered a miscarriage of justice from the prosecutor's statements about the seating of the shooter, ballistic evidence, bullet fragments, or Washington's opportunity to ask additional questions after viewing the vehicle.
Holdings
- Claims that are waived or procedurally barred under the applicable version of Rule 61 will not be considered on the merits unless an applicable exception, such as jurisdictional error or a colorable miscarriage-of-justice claim, is established.
- Washington did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to show objectively unreasonable representation and a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.
- Washington's claim that the prosecutor misled the jury about Waterman's potential sentencing leniency was procedurally barred because Washington did not plead a colorable miscarriage of justice.
- The Superior Court properly denied the remaining claims because they were waived or procedurally barred, and Washington failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance, prejudice, or a colorable miscarriage of justice.
Factual background
A New Castle County grand jury charged Washington with offenses arising from the fatal shooting of Leighton Francis and Amin Guy in Wilmington. After a nine-day trial, a jury convicted Washington of two counts of manslaughter and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, acquitted him of attempted robbery, and the Superior Court separately convicted him of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. Washington's postconviction claims challenged counsel's handling of witness statements and evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and asserted errors involving forensic testimony and the opportunity to examine the crime-scene vehicle.
Procedural history
Washington was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of manslaughter and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and after a bench trial of possession of a firearm by a person prohibited. The Superior Court imposed sixty-four years of unsuspended Level V imprisonment followed by decreasing levels of supervision, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Washington filed his first Rule 61 motion, later amended it and asserted supplemental claims. A Superior Court Commissioner recommended denial and permitted counsel to withdraw; the Superior Court adopted that recommendation, denied postconviction relief, and granted counsel's withdrawal motion. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.