State v. Dixon
1211005646 A&B
Del. Super. Ct.Oct 11, 2016Background
- Troy M. Dixon was indicted on multiple charges stemming from a shooting; two separate trials followed after the court severed one charge.
- At the first trial (Oct. 1, 2013) Dixon was convicted of Assault Second Degree, PFDCF, and Resisting Arrest; that conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- At a separate trial (Apr. 7, 2014) for the severed PFBPP charge, a jury convicted Dixon of Simple PFBPP (lesser included), and that conviction was also affirmed on direct appeal.
- Dixon filed a timely Motion for Postconviction Relief raising multiple ineffective-assistance and related claims; appointed counsel narrowed the amended petition to one claim: trial counsel improperly declined a D.R.E. 404(b) limiting (cautionary) instruction.
- Trial counsel had objected to 404(b) evidence but, after the court admitted it, affirmatively asked the court not to give a cautionary instruction for tactical reasons; Dixon now argues such an instruction is mandatory per Getz.
- Dixon also filed a Motion to Compel transcripts and a Rule 35(a) Motion to Correct Sentence; the court considered all motions together.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of a D.R.E. 404(b) cautionary instruction is reversible/error when trial counsel requested omission | Dixon: Getz requires a mandatory limiting instruction after 404(b) evidence; omission entitles him to relief | State/Court: Trial counsel affirmatively waived/requested omission for tactical reasons to avoid emphasizing the bad act | Omission was not reversible; counsel’s tactical decision can waive instruction and is not per se ineffective |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for requesting omission of the limiting instruction | Dixon: Counsel’s request was deficient and prejudiced the outcome under Strickland | Counsel: The decision was strategic and reasonable; no deficient performance or prejudice shown | Ineffective-assistance claim denied—no deficient performance and no prejudice shown |
| Whether additional postconviction claims (identification, flight instruction, discovery, investigation, prosecutorial vouching, etc.) warrant relief | Dixon: Multiple claimed errors/omissions by trial counsel and the State affected fairness | Postconviction counsel reviewed claims and found them unsupported by the record or not prejudicial | Court found those claims without merit as explained in the amended motion and record |
| Whether Dixon’s Rule 35(a) motion shows an illegal sentence for PFBPP | Dixon: Sentence allegedly illegal | State/Court: Sentence within statutory limits and court’s discretion | Rule 35(a) motion denied—sentence not illegal nor imposed in an illegal manner |
Key Cases Cited
- Getz v. State, 538 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988) (discusses when limiting instructions should accompany evidence of other acts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Floray v. State, 768 A.2d 469 (Del. 2001) (addresses standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)