State v. Flonnory
9707012190
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- Freddy L. Flonnory was convicted of murder at a 1999 trial; that conviction was reversed. A second trial in 2004 resulted in conviction and, after the penalty phase, a life sentence (jury had recommended death but court imposed life). Appeals and initial postconviction and federal habeas challenges were unsuccessful.
- Flonnory filed multiple Rule 61 motions: first in 2007 (denied), second in 2013 (denied as procedurally barred), a third/pro se amended motion in 2013 with appointed counsel who moved to withdraw in 2015 after finding claims meritless (motion denied), and the instant fourth motion filed July 18, 2017.
- The 2017 (fourth) Rule 61 motion asserted "newly discovered evidence": that trial and postconviction counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge a statement by witness Joy Watson taken by an FBI agent under Fare v. Michael grounds (an "absent parent" / juvenile invocation issue), and that admission of that statement affected the trial/appeal outcome.
- The Commissioner applied Rule 61 standards: Rule 61(i)(1) one-year time bar for postconviction motions, and Rule 61(d)(2)(i) permitting newly discovered evidence claims in subsequent motions only if pleaded with particularity and creating a strong inference of actual innocence.
- The Commissioner found the claim is time-barred, not actually "newly discovered" (Watson's statement existed at trial and Fare was decided decades earlier), Fare is inapplicable, and Flonnory lacked standing to challenge alleged violations of Watson's rights; recommended summary dismissal under Rule 61(d)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 4th Rule 61 motion alleging ineffective assistance based on failure to challenge Watson's statement survives procedural bars | Flonnory: Counsel ineffective for not suppressing Watson's FBI statement under Fare v. Michael; that constitutes newly discovered evidence excusing time bar | State: Claim is time-barred, not newly discovered, Fare inapplicable, and Flonnory lacks standing to assert Watson's rights | Motion is time-barred and fails on the merits; summary dismissal recommended |
| Whether Fare v. Michael supports suppression of Watson's statement | Flonnory: Fare establishes that certain custodial requests can invoke Fifth Amendment protections, warranting challenge to Watson's statement | State: Fare does not apply to these facts; Fare concerns juvenile invocation of probation officer and interrogation cessation, not this witness statement | Fare is inapplicable to Flonnory's claim |
| Whether the alleged evidence qualifies as "newly discovered" under Rule 61(d)(2)(i) | Flonnory: Characterizes the asserted legal defect as newly discovered evidence to avoid procedural bar | State: The statement and controlling law predate the motion; it is not newly discovered and does not show actual innocence | Does not meet Rule 61(d)(2)(i) particularity or actual-innocence threshold |
| Whether Flonnory has standing to challenge Watson's constitutional rights | Flonnory: Seeks to exclude Watson's statement on constitutional grounds | State: Flonnory cannot assert Watson's personal constitutional claims | Flonnory lacks standing; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Fare v. Michael, 442 U.S. 707 (1979) (limits on treating a juvenile's request to consult probation officer as per se invocation of Fifth Amendment right)
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural bars and requirements for postconviction relief in Delaware)
- Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006) (appellate decision affirming second-trial conviction and life sentence)