State v. Dearry
1411015404
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- In Dec. 2014 Jamaal Dearry was indicted with co-defendants in a racketeering investigation; police executed a search of 51 Brookside Blvd. pursuant to a search warrant and found drugs, two loaded handguns (one magazine with Dearry's fingerprint), and personal items linking Dearry to the residence.
- Dearry pleaded guilty five months after indictment to Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and Drug Dealing Tier 2; he signed a Truth‑in‑Sentencing Guilty Plea form and the court conducted a plea colloquy finding the plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- Sentencing: effective November 24, 2014, with unsuspended Level V time equaling the Delaware statutory minimum (sentenced Jan. 22, 2016).
- Dearry filed a timely Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to (1) move to sever his charges from co‑defendants (prejudicial joinder) and (2) file a motion to suppress evidence from the search.
- Trial counsel did not submit an affidavit (due to disability); the State opposed the motion arguing procedural bars and lack of merit; Dearry replied and the court considered timeliness and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dearry) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural timeliness and bars to relief | Motion is timely (filed <1 year after final judgment) and ineffective assistance claims are properly raised postconviction | State argued claims could be barred as not raised earlier | Court: Motion timely; ineffective assistance claims not procedurally barred because such claims typically are raised in postconviction proceedings |
| Failure to move to sever (prejudicial joinder) | Joinder with co‑defendants implicated by wiretaps and surveillance was prejudicial; no evidence linked Dearry to racketeering so severance should have been sought | Even if severed, State would still have presented search evidence found at Dearry’s residence that supported the charges he pleaded to | Court: Dearry failed to show prejudice or a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial rather than plead; claim fails |
| Failure to move to suppress search evidence | Warrant allegedly targeted a codefendant (Kenneth Hall); police should have left when Hall was not present and Dearry’s rented room was a separate sublet not subject to the search | Affidavit of probable cause shows a search warrant was obtained for the premises; no factual basis shown that counsel could have successfully challenged the warrant; plea colloquy and plea form showed Dearry was satisfied with counsel | Court: Counsel’s conduct was within reasonable professional norms; Dearry did not overcome the presumption of counsel’s effectiveness and did not show he would have declined the plea if suppression had been pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (standard for ineffective assistance in plea context)
- Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353 (Del. 1996) (strong presumption of reasonable counsel performance)
- Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1998) (defendant bound by plea colloquy statements absent clear and convincing evidence)
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) (search warrant valid if probable cause that evidence will be found, even if occupants not implicated)
- Bailey v. State, 588 A.2d 1121 (Del. 1991) (procedural rules governing postconviction relief timing and bars)
- Whittle v. State, 138 A.3d 1149 (Del. 2016) (ineffective assistance claims generally not waived until postconviction)