State v. Watson
1401017113
Del. Super. Ct.Oct 27, 2017Background
- On January 26, 2014 Safe Streets officers arrested a man who had heroin; that arrestee said he bought the drugs from a man at 38 Charles Court, Newark. Officers identified Jerrett Watson as a resident of that address and on probation.
- On January 28, 2014 officers executed an administrative search warrant at Watson’s residence; officers observed drug paraphernalia, heroin wrappers, a blue wax-paper baggie marked “PUMA,” small amounts of marijuana, and a coat containing suspected drugs. Watson admitted post‑Miranda ownership of the coat, phone, marijuana, and paraphernalia.
- Police seized an Apple iPhone and obtained a search warrant for its contents; discovery included numerous text messages the State intended to use as evidence of dealing.
- Watson was indicted for drug dealing (heroin), possession of marijuana, paraphernalia, and receiving stolen property. He pled guilty to one count of Drug Dealing Heroin on July 22, 2014; he had two prior Title 16 convictions making the charge a Class B felony and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 months at Level V followed by additional terms.
- Watson filed a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file suppression motions (challenging the affidavit of probable cause and the phone/text evidence) and for inadequate investigation and advice to accept the plea.
- Trial counsel submitted a detailed affidavit stating he reviewed discovery (including texts), concluded suppression of phone content was unlikely because the State obtained a warrant, considered but rejected other suppression theories, advised Watson about risks and mitigation, and recommended accepting the plea; Watson knowingly and voluntarily pled and declined to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not filing suppression motion for text messages | Watson: counsel should have moved to suppress texts from phone | Counsel: State properly obtained texts via warrant; suppression unlikely | Denied — counsel’s decision was reasonable; no Strickland prejudice shown | |
| Ineffective assistance for not challenging affidavit of probable cause | Watson: counsel failed to investigate and should have challenged affidavit veracity | Counsel: suppression of statements would be difficult; reviewed and advised client | Denied — counsel’s performance not objectively unreasonable | |
| Ineffective assistance for inadequate investigation/advice to plead | Watson: counsel advised plea without adequate investigation | Counsel: reviewed discovery, met with client and family, discussed risks/mitigation and ME scandal potential | Denied — plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; counsel advised appropriately | |
| Procedural bars under Rule 61 | State: no procedural bars apparent | Watson: timely first Rule 61 motion raising ineffective assistance | Court: motion not time‑barred or otherwise procedurally barred | Proceeded to merits; claim denied on substance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (applying Strickland in Delaware)
- Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (presumption that counsel’s representation is professionally reasonable)