Feliciano v. State
344, 2016
| Del. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- Defendant Antonio Feliciano was convicted after a one‑day bench trial of second‑degree burglary and misdemeanor theft (Apr. 25, 2014); sentenced as a habitual offender to eight years Level V plus probation on the theft count.
- Police executed a search warrant at Feliciano’s home, recovered property belonging to the victim, and found Feliciano’s fingerprint on an air conditioner; Feliciano gave a videotaped statement admitting presence but blaming others.
- On direct appeal the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. Feliciano then filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction motion asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to move to suppress, inadequate cross‑examination, failure to subpoena eyewitnesses, and proceeding despite mental‑medication effects).
- The Superior Court held a hearing, received trial counsel’s affidavit and a post‑trial psychiatric competency evaluation (psychiatrist concluded Feliciano was competent at trial and not substantially affected by mental illness at the time of the offense).
- The Superior Court denied relief after de novo review; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, finding counsel’s performance reasonable and no prejudice shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to subpoena eyewitness(es) | Feliciano: counsel failed to subpoena key eyewitness(es) (e.g., Bruce Cherry, niece), depriving him of exculpatory testimony | Counsel: subpoenaed available witnesses (son testified); other witnesses unavailable or invoked Fifth; counsel investigated and pursued subpoenas | Held: No deficient performance or prejudice — counsel acted reasonably given witness availability and trial strategy |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress | Feliciano: counsel should have filed suppression motion to exclude statement/search | Counsel: search was pursuant to a warrant; suppression would have been fruitless; counsel reasonably declined | Held: Counsel’s decision reasonable; no ineffective assistance |
| Competency to stand trial / proceeding while medicated | Feliciano: medication and mental illness prevented understanding/participation; trial should have been stopped | State/Trial counsel: pretrial colloquy showed Feliciano lucid and understanding; long‑time counsel believed him capable; psychiatric report post‑trial found him competent | Held: Competency standard met (Dusky); psychiatric evaluation and colloquy support that Feliciano was competent and could assist counsel |
| Procedural default / waiver of issues on appeal | Feliciano raised multiple claims in Rule 61; on appeal he presses only the subpoena claim | State: other ineffective‑assistance claims waived by failure to raise on appeal | Held: Other claims deemed waived; appellate review limited to subpoena claim, which fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to reasonable trial strategy and importance of presuming competence of counsel)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (prejudice inquiry under Strickland and limits on habeas review of counsel performance)
- Prema v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) (standard for evaluating counsel performance errors)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (competency standard: ability to consult with counsel and factual/rational understanding of proceedings)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (competency and the court's duty to inquire when doubt exists)
- State v. Shields, 593 A.2d 986 (Del. Super. Ct. 1990) (discussion of competency and related factors)
- Scott v. State, 7 A.3d 471 (Del. 2010) (application of Strickland in Delaware postconviction context)