Guy v. State
2013 Del. LEXIS 603
| Del. | 2013Background
- Guy was convicted in 2004 of multiple offenses including first-degree murder and robbery for the Alameri crimes.
- On direct appeal, the court affirmed the verdict and denied a jury instruction on accomplice testimony.
- Guy sought postconviction relief in 2008; his initial motion was denied and affirmed on appeal in 2010 after related proceedings.
- In 2013 Guy, pro se, filed another postconviction motion asserting ineffective postconviction counsel and seeking a modified Bland instruction.
- The Superior Court denied the claims on the merits and held some to be procedurally barred; this appeal followed.
- The Court addresses (a) whether the Brooks-modified Bland instruction claim is procedurally barred and timely, and (b) whether the ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim is timely and non-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the modified Bland instruction claim is procedurally baro | Guy argues Brooks created a new retroactive rule requiring the instruction. | State contends Brooks does not apply retroactively and the claim was previously adjudicated. | Procedurally barred; no retroactive application and previously adjudicated. |
| Whether the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim is timely | Guy contends counsel was ineffective in not raising 10 of 11 trial-counsel claims; timing should permit. | State argues Rule 61(i)(1) time-bar applies and the claim is untimely. | Untimely; one-year clock starts after conclusion of first postconviction proceeding; not timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland v. State, 263 A.2d 286 (Del. 1970) (accomplice testimony instruction framework)
- Brooks v. State, 40 A.3d 346 (Del. 2012) (modified Bland instruction for accomplice testimony; retroactivity limited)
- Guy v. State, 913 A.2d 558 (Del. 2006) (direct-appeal rulings on accomplice instruction)
- Guy v. State, 999 A.2d 863 (Del. 2010) (mandate and postconviction procedural posture relevant to timing)
- Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935 (Del. 2013) (discusses Rule 61(i) timing principles)
- Staats v. State, 961 A.2d 514 (Del. 2008) (timing begins on completion of direct appeal for Rule 61(i))
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (recognizes first postconviction proceeding as equivalent to direct appeal for purposes of ineffective-assistance timing)