McGriff v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Joshua McGriff’s convictions and sentence for attempted first-degree rape and third-degree assault. The Court rejected claims concerning multiplicity, police searches and alleged false statements, speedy trial, suggestive identification, sufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court also granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c) as moot after concluding that the appeal lacked merit and any arguably appealable issue.

Holdings

1. The multiplicity claim was moot because the kidnapping convictions were vacated by judgment of acquittal and the attempted-rape convictions were merged for sentencing.
2. McGriff was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that police knowingly or recklessly relied on a false statement to establish probable cause; his evidence-preservation claim also failed because he did not identify materially exculpatory evidence that was not preserved.
3. McGriff's right to a speedy trial was not violated.
4. McGriff's suggestive-identification claim failed because the record did not involve a showup identification procedure.
5. There was no plain error because sufficient evidence supported the attempted-first-degree-rape and third-degree-assault convictions.
6. The Court declined to consider McGriff's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims because they were raised for the first time on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the indictment was multiplicitous in violation of double-jeopardy principles.
2. Whether police unlawfully searched or seized McGriff's cell phone, relied on false information in violation of Franks v. Delaware, or failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence.
3. Whether McGriff was denied his right to a speedy trial.
4. Whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and violated due process.
5. Whether plain error existed because the evidence was insufficient to support the attempted-rape and assault convictions.
6. Whether the Court should consider ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for the first time on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed