State v. Miller
1412002671
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Robert Miller was indicted for second-degree assault; on June 9, 2015 he pled guilty in exchange for dismissal of an offensive touching charge and the State capping an unsuspended sentencing recommendation at three years.
- On December 5, 2015 the Superior Court sentenced Miller to eight years Level V incarceration under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k), plus six months Level IV.
- Miller timely filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: counsel failed to subpoena the victim’s older medical records (despite a request), failed to return voicemails, limited discussions to pleading, and ignored an inquiry about appeal.
- Trial/plea counsel Ross Flockerzie submitted an affidavit conceding he did not subpoena old medical records but had the medical records for the incident; he denied the communication failures. The State submitted that the available medical records and photos showed acute, severe injuries and that Miller admitted the assault and was satisfied with counsel at plea.
- The court reviewed the plea colloquy (Miller understood potential maximum sentence and was satisfied with counsel) and sentencing record (photographs and medical records demonstrating recent injuries) and concluded Miller failed to show deficient performance or prejudice.
- The court denied the Rule 61 motion, finding (among other points) that obtaining older medical records would not have helped Miller and might have harmed his defense, and that Miller’s claim was essentially dissatisfaction with sentence rather than counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to subpoena victim's old medical records | Miller: counsel was asked to obtain old records that would show injuries were old and undermine State's case | State/Flockerzie: counsel had the medical records for the incident; records and photos show acute injuries; not prejudicial | Denied — failure to subpoena old records not deficient or prejudicial; records/photos establish injuries were recent and material would likely have harmed Miller at trial |
| Ineffective assistance for poor communication (unreturned voicemails) | Miller: counsel didn’t return voicemails | Flockerzie: denies failing to respond; no prejudice shown | Denied — no prejudice shown and affidavits contradict claim |
| Ineffective assistance for limited discussion (only discussed plea) | Miller: counsel only discussed accepting plea, not trial options | Flockerzie/State: plea colloquy shows Miller was advised and satisfied; counsel fully advised rights | Denied — plea colloquy shows informed decision and satisfaction with counsel |
| Ineffective assistance for not responding about appeal | Miller: counsel failed to respond when Miller asked about appeal after sentencing | State: an appeal was in fact pursued on Miller's behalf; no prejudice | Denied — no prejudice; appeal was pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for counsel errors affecting guilty pleas: must show reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial)
- Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353 (Del. 1996) (defendant must substantiate prejudice or face summary dismissal)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (application of Hill standard in Delaware guilty plea context)
- Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (Strickland is two‑pronged; no need to analyze performance if no prejudice shown)