State v. Sykes
0411008300
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- In November 2004, 68-year-old Virginia Trimnell disappeared; her body was later found bound and stuffed in a suitcase in the trunk of her car. Autopsy showed strangulation and sperm in the victim's vagina; DNA matched Ambrose L. Sykes.
- Police recovered Trimnell's purse, suitcase, and other personal items in Sykes' possession; Sykes was captured on Dover Downs surveillance leaving in Trimnell's car shortly after she vanished.
- Sykes was convicted in 2006 of first‑degree murder, first‑degree rape, and related charges; originally sentenced to death and affirmed on direct appeal in Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008).
- After postconviction proceedings and resentencing authority developments, Sykes filed a second (amended) Rule 61 postconviction motion alleging, principally, ineffective assistance by his postconviction counsel for failing to: (a) appeal all issues from his first Rule 61 proceeding; (b) present/explore certain computer‑forensics discrepancies; (c) call or develop witness testimony showing a prior relationship with the victim; and (d) secure/use forensic pathology testimony challenging non‑consent.
- The State moved for summary dismissal under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). The Superior Court denied relief and summarily dismissed the motion, finding Sykes failed to satisfy Rule 61(d)(2)’s exceptions (new evidence or new retroactive rule) and that the proffered “new” evidence would not create a strong inference of actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Sykes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sykes' second Rule 61 motion overcomes the successive‑motion bar of Rule 61(d)(2) | The purportedly “new” evidence (forensic search‑term discrepancies, unelicited witness testimony, and additional pathology opinion) shows actual innocence or qualifies as a new basis | Rule 61(d)(2) applies; Sykes cannot meet the narrow exceptions and his motion must be summarily dismissed | Denied — Sykes failed to satisfy Rule 61(d)(2); motion summarily dismissed |
| Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise/appeal all issues from first Rule 61 proceeding | Postconviction counsel abandoned multiple issues on appeal (allegedly for space reasons), prejudicing Sykes | Even if counsel omitted issues, Sykes still must satisfy Rule 61(d)(2) for a second motion; omission alone does not bypass procedural bar | Denied — procedural requirements not met; merits not reached |
| Failure to present/exploit computer‑forensics evidence (search‑term discrepancies) | Forensic analyst would show key differences between Trimnell’s and Sykes’ computers that undermine the State’s theory and suggest someone else accessed Trimnell’s computer | Differences are minor or insignificant in light of overwhelming inculpatory evidence; do not create strong inference of innocence | Denied — forensic differences are insufficient to show it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict |
| Failure to call additional witnesses and to develop forensic pathology testimony (consent issue) | Witnesses could show Sykes knew Trimnell; pathologist would testify there were no injuries diagnostic of forced penetration, undermining rape/burglary findings | Even accepting such testimony, other strong evidence (DNA, victim’s injuries, strangulation, body naked below waist, repositioning) supports convictions; new testimony would not negate guilt | Denied — testimonial and pathology proffers would not produce the Schlup (actual innocence) standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Guy v. State, 82 A.3d 710 (Del. 2013) (addressing effective assistance of postconviction counsel issues)
- Sykes v. State, 953 A.2d 261 (Del. 2008) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- Sykes v. State, 147 A.3d 201 (Del. 2015) (affirming denial of earlier postconviction relief)
- Rauf v. State, 145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016) (procedural guidance affecting resentencing post‑Rauf)
- Powell v. Delaware, 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016) (procedural guidance affecting resentencing)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (standard for actual‑innocence gateway to overcome procedural bars)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) (timing and credibility considerations for actual‑innocence claims)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (consideration of all evidence, old and new, in innocence review)