State v. Campbell, 1411008699

Background

Keith L. Campbell was indicted (Jan. 20, 2015) on multiple charges including two counts of Attempted Murder First Degree, firearms offenses, and Conspiracy First Degree.
On October 6, 2015, Campbell pled guilty to Assault First Degree, Assault Second Degree, Conspiracy Second Degree, and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (PFBPP); the plea limited the State’s Level 5 recommendation.
Campbell signed a Truth-in-Sentencing form acknowledging voluntariness and that the aggregate consecutive maximum could be up to 50 years.
Campbell later moved to withdraw his plea claiming incorrect advice about the mandatory minimum for the PFBPP charge; the court denied withdrawal but reduced the PFBPP mandatory minimum from 10 to 5 years.
Sentencing: June 7, 2016 — total 12 years at Level 5 (including 5 years for PFBPP).
On Dec. 5, 2016 Campbell filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to obtain a Franks hearing / effective suppression motion) and prosecutorial misstatements regarding mandatory sentencing; he also sought appointed counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Campbell)	Held
Whether Campbell’s Rule 61 motion is procedurally barred	The State argued the claims were previously adjudicated and barred by Rule 61(i)(4)	Campbell contended suppression/Franks and sentencing-misunderstanding claims warrant relief	Court: Motion is procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(4); summary dismissal recommended
Whether Campbell pled the required Rule 61(d)(2) particularity (new evidence or new retroactive law)	State: Campbell did not plead new evidence of actual innocence or a new retroactive constitutional rule	Campbell asserted counsel errors and sentencing misunderstanding but did not allege actual innocence or a new rule	Court: Rule 61(d)(2) requirements not met; pleading insufficient
Whether counsel was ineffective re: suppression/Franks	State: counsel acted reasonably; motions were pursued and partly successful; decisions were adjudicated	Campbell claimed counsel failed to obtain Franks hearing and failed to secure suppression relief	Court: Even on merits, counsel’s performance was not shown deficient; tactical choices reasonable and no prejudice shown (no claim he would have refused plea)
Whether plea/sentence prejudice from alleged misstatements about mandatory minimums warrants relief	State: Campbell received benefit from plea; court corrected mandatory minimum; no evidence he would have gone to trial	Campbell argued he relied on overstated statutory time and would have preferred a different plea	Court: No prejudice shown; plea entered knowingly and voluntarily; relief denied
Appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings	State: not warranted because claims lack merit and Rule 61 failure	Campbell sought counsel to pursue his Rule 61 claims	Court: Denied — no basis for appointment under Rule 61(e)(2)

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standard for hearing when warrant affidavit allegedly contains deliberate falsehoods)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to counsel’s tactical decisions under ineffective assistance review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (plea court not bound by prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation)
State v. Wright, 653 A.2d 288 (Del. Super. 1994) (precedent discussing ineffective assistance analysis)