State v. Payne, 1308012898A

Background

On Feb. 26, 2014 a Sussex County jury convicted Alonzo J. Payne of first‑degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and tampering with physical evidence; he was later sentenced as an habitual offender to terms including two concurrent 25‑year Level 5 sentences for robbery and firearm possession.
The convictions rested on eyewitness testimony identifying a robber in a white shirt and red shorts, a co‑defendant who recognized Payne at the scene, recovered torn currency matching the victim’s description, a revolver found under a couch, and a statement by Payne admitting he was at the Service General.
On direct appeal the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the convictions; its opinion recited facts and applied the Pena test to a trial‑level mistrial claim about a witness saying Payne had been “locked up.”
Payne filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion raising multiple claims: denial of jury access to victim statements, ineffective assistance of counsel (vague failures to move and to cross‑examine), hearsay/admission of §3507 statements, insufficiency of the evidence, and prejudice from mention of prior incarceration.
Postconviction counsel moved to withdraw after reviewing the record and concluded Payne’s claims lacked merit; the Superior Court granted withdrawal and summarily dismissed Payne’s Rule 61 motion as procedurally barred or meritless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury access to prior written §3507 statements during deliberations	Court should have allowed jury to view the written statements when requested	Payne argued the judge denied the jury note despite counsel and prosecutor agreeing	Denied: claim procedurally barred (not raised on appeal) and, alternatively, no abuse of discretion in withholding the exhibits given presentation concerns
Admission of co‑witness statements / hearsay (§3507 and excited utterance)	Admission violated hearsay rules	Payne argued various Smith/Hutt statements were inadmissible hearsay	Denied: procedurally barred and, alternatively, §3507 admission and excited‑utterance exceptions supported admission
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to file motions / poor cross‑examination)	Trial counsel failed to file requested motions and inadequately cross‑examined witnesses	Payne alleged general failure but provided no specific factual or legal particulars	Denied: claims too vague; Rule 61 requires concrete allegations and prejudice under Strickland not shown
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence insufficient because victim did not point Payne out in court and testimony had inconsistencies	Payne pointed to inconsistencies and alternate suspects wearing similar clothes	Denied: procedurally barred (not raised on appeal) and, on merits, record contained ample direct and circumstantial evidence supporting conviction (Jackson standard)
Mention of prior incarceration before jury	Jury heard multiple references to Payne’s record	Payne argued multiple references prejudiced jury	Denied: factually only one stray reference occurred; claim procedurally barred or previously adjudicated on appeal
Chain of custody / expert testimony on firearm/DNA testing	Failure to test firearm and gaps in custody undermined evidence	Payne alleged improper expert testimony and chain gaps prejudiced outcome	Denied: procedurally barred; even if considered, any defects were harmless given overwhelming evidence and no Strickland prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Pena v. State, 856 A.2d 548 (Del. 2004) (sets multi‑factor test for mistrial/curative instruction analysis)
Flonnory v. State, 893 A.2d 507 (Del. 2006) (treatment of prior written statements under §3507)
Morse v. State, 120 A.3d 1 (Del. 2015) (discussion of §3507 evidence use)
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (summary dismissal when allegations lack specificity)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Mitchell v. State, 984 A.2d 1194 (Del. 2009) (harmlessness and prejudice analysis in evidentiary claims)
Fortt v. State, 767 A.2d 799 (Del. 2001) (prejudice analysis where evidence is strong)