State v. Phlipot
2012 Del. Super. LEXIS 553
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- In 2010, a Sussex County jury convicted Matthew Phlipot of two counts of rape in the fourth degree, six counts of tampering with a witness, and twenty-seven counts of criminal contempt; two other rape fourth degree charges were acquitted.
- Phlipot was sentenced on August 10, 2010; the appellate mandate issued May 19, 2011, and the convictions were upheld.
- Phlipot, through new counsel, sought post-conviction relief on March 2, 2012; the court obtained trial counsel’s affidavit and later sought input from the State.
- The victim, KK, was seventeen at the time; Phlipot was thirty-two; KK and Phlipot engaged in a sexual relationship and KK transferred her contact information to him, leading to emails and communications.
- KK was initially not fully truthful to police; after multiple interviews, she admitted the sexual relationship with Phlipot during later interviews.
- Phlipot repeatedly violated a no-contact order from Family Court by sending KK numerous emails, including a Yahoo! account with concealed messages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the age-of-victim instruction was proper | Phlipot argues the instruction is only for victims under sixteen. | State asserts instruction complies with statute and is correct when age is not an element. | Instruction proper; no ineffective assistance; Rule 61(i)(3) bar applies. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting KK's age evidence | Phlipot contends counsel failed to use evidence KK was eighteen. | Counsel reasonably chose not to introduce it and sought factual innocence instead. | No ineffective assistance; evidentiary defense unavailable; no relief. |
| Whether excluding Maryland-sex evidence was mishandled | Phlipot claims counsel should have introduced evidence of Maryland sex to negate emails' relevance. | Counsel reasonably sought to exclude prejudicial evidence and avoid inflaming jurors. | Counsel acted reasonably; exclusion upheld; no merit in claim. |
| Whether trial counsel's cross-examination of Herholdt was ineffective | Phlipot asserts counsel failed to expose bias and friendship between KK and Herholdt. | Counsel adequately exposed bias and relevant relationships during cross-exam. | No ineffective assistance; bias adequately highlighted. |
| Whether the Franks claim and Yahoo email suppression were properly handled | Phlipot argues counsel should have filed a Franks motion with an affidavit; challenges warrants and omissions. | Counsel made substantial showing; rulings supported; no error. | No error;Franks issue procedurally barred or meritless; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Panuski v. State, 41 A.3d 416 (Del.2012) (contextual rule cited in post-conviction proceedings)
- Scott v. State, 7 A.3d 471 (Del.2010) (relevance of trial strategy and evidentiary rulings)
- Gattis v. State, 697 A.2d 1174 (Del.1997) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance and evidentiary issues)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (198;) (probable-cause challenge to search warrant; Franks standard)