Escalera v. State
407, 2020
| Del. | Aug 4, 2021Background
- In June 2016 Escalera was charged by indictment with aggravated menacing, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony (PDWDCF), possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited (PDWBPP), resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct; the PDWBPP count was severed (Case B).
- At trial a victim reported Escalera advanced with a black knife; a 911 caller described the attacker; police found a black knife near where the victim saw a wrist motion but DNA on the knife did not link to Escalera.
- A jury in April 2017 acquitted Escalera of resisting arrest but convicted him on the remaining Case A charges; a subsequent bench trial convicted him of PDWBPP in Case B; the court adjudicated him a habitual offender and imposed a lengthy sentence, which this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Escalera timely filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial counsel; appointed postconviction counsel moved to withdraw after finding no meritorious claims and the Superior Court denied relief.
- On appeal Escalera argued (1) counsel failed to obtain a DNA sample from the victim’s boyfriend, (2) counsel failed to locate and interview the 911 caller, and (3) the indictment was defective for a mens rea typographical error; the Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court applied Strickland for ineffective-assistance claims (finding Escalera failed both prongs), held the indictment error was a typographical mistake cured by the jury instruction, and noted procedural bars (Rule 61 and plain-error review where applicable).
Issues
| Issue | Escalera's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain DNA from victim's boyfriend | Trial counsel was deficient for not testing/obtaining boyfriend's DNA which might have linked the knife to someone else | Counsel's investigation was reasonable; Escalera cannot show deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different outcome | Denied — failed both Strickland prongs |
| Ineffective assistance for not locating/interviewing 911 caller | Counsel should have found and questioned the 911 caller, who could have provided exculpatory ID evidence | Counsel made reasonable strategic choices; no showing that caller would alter the verdict | Denied — failed both Strickland prongs |
| Indictment defective for typographical mens rea error in PDWDCF count | Count II erroneously stated "un knowingly" instead of "knowingly," rendering the charging instrument defective | Indictment cited the correct statute and put defendant on notice; jury was properly instructed; any error was harmless/plain error review fails | Denied — procedural bar and meritless; error corrected at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Baynum v. State, 211 A.3d 1075 (Del. 2019) (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief)
- Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 (Del. 2020) (ineffective‑assistance claims properly raised in Rule 61 proceedings)
- White v. State, 243 A.3d 381 (Del. 2020) (no plain error where trial judge corrected typographical indictment error before jury)
- Malloy v. State, 462 A.2d 1088 (Del. 1983) (indictment must inform defendant sufficiently to prepare a defense and bar double jeopardy)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (strong presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
- Hoskins v. State, 102 A.3d 724 (Del. 2014) (strategic choices after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
- Blendt, 120 A.2d 321 (Del. 1956) (indictment sufficient if it fulfills its basic purpose of acquainting defendant with the charge)