Loper v. State
7, 2017
| Del. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2016 a Superior Court jury convicted Unique T. Loper of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, and Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited; he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 31 years at Level V, with suspension after 18 years.
- Incident: on Jan. 31, 2016 a fight at Famous Tim’s Tavern escalated; witnesses reported a short black man brandishing a gun, patrons subdued him, and a single gunshot was heard as he was dragged outside.
- Police recovered a spent .40 caliber shell casing outside the bar and multiple blood samples; DNA from one blood sample matched Loper.
- Loper gave a recorded statement to police admitting he brought a .40 caliber gun to the bar; he did not testify at trial.
- On direct appeal, Loper (through a Rule 26(c) brief and pro se submissions) raised: (1) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to move to suppress his statement because he was on drugs, and (2) insufficiency of the evidence because no witness positively identified him as the gunman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Loper’s statement | State: claim not raised properly on direct appeal; ineffective assistance claims generally not considered first on direct appeal | Loper: statement should have been suppressed because he was on drugs when he made it | Court: declined to consider ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal (procedurally barred) |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict without an eyewitness ID | State: DNA at scene, spent .40 casing, and Loper’s admission establish identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Loper: no witness positively identified him as the man with the gun; evidence was insufficient | Court: evidence sufficient; admission plus DNA and casing permit a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (establishes procedures for appellate counsel withdrawal where no meritorious issues)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (appellate counsel obligations and defendant’s rights in appeals)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 233 (Del. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claims not considered first on direct appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Vincent v. State, 996 A.2d 777 (Del. 2010) (State may prove identity with circumstantial evidence)