State v. Davis, 1211016788

Background

Ronald Davis was arrested after a vehicle and foot chase; charged with multiple offenses and later indicted for Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited (PDWBPP), Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance (dismissed before trial), and Resisting Arrest. He was convicted by a jury and later declared an habitual offender; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Davis filed multiple pro se postconviction Rule 61 motions over several years; Office of Defense Services initially filed then withdrew a motion concerning drug-evidence issues because no drug conviction remained.
Christopher S. Koyste was appointed to represent Davis for postconviction matters, reviewed Davis’s pro se filings, and moved to withdraw under Rule 61(e)(6) after concluding claims lacked merit.
The Commissioner reviewed the record and recommended summary dismissal of Davis’s postconviction motion and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel.
The Commissioner found several claims plainly without merit on the record (e.g., preliminary hearing occurred; Davis was present when declared habitual offender; no OCME/drug evidence used at trial).
The remaining claims alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to provide a warrant copy, failure to move to sever or suppress, failure to challenge arrest, failure to seek speedy trial, failure to object to testimony, and prejudice from prison attire); the Commissioner rejected each claim under Strickland and related standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 61 motion should be summarily dismissed	Motion should be denied; claims have merit	Motion should survive review for merits	Summary dismissal recommended because claims plainly lack merit on the record
Denial of due process for no preliminary hearing	N/A	Davis claimed no preliminary hearing or waiver	Preliminary hearing occurred Nov. 28, 2012; claim dismissed
Ineffective assistance — failure to sever PDWBPP / use of stipulation	N/A	Trial counsel ineffective for not severing and for presenting person-prohibited status to jury	Counsel used a stipulation protecting defendant from impeachment; tactic reasonable and not prejudicial — no ineffectiveness
Ineffective assistance — failure to suppress firearm / challenge stop or arrest	N/A	Counsel ineffective for not suppressing firearm or challenging stop/arrest	Officers observed failure to stop, pursuit, witnessed tossing of firearm, and defendant admitted possession; suppression would not have succeeded — no ineffectiveness
Ineffective assistance — failure to move for speedy trial	N/A	Counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss for speedy trial violation	Delay (arrest-to-trial ~9 months; indictment-to-trial ~8 months) not presumptively prejudicial; claim previously adjudicated — no ineffectiveness
Other claims (discovery/warrant copy, leading questions, prison attire)	N/A	Counsel failed to provide warrant, failed to object to leading questions, and allowed prison attire	Defendant was served with warrant; leading-question use was permissible; any appearance in jail clothing not prejudicial given strength of evidence — no ineffectiveness

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (defendant should not be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural rules for Rule 61 review)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal when claims lack merit)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1988) (counsel’s role in appellate advocacy and withdrawal standards)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal for lack of meritorious issues)