Stone v. State
588, 2016
| Del. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- On Feb 6, 2016, a light blue Ford Taurus led police on a high-speed chase; the driver allegedly abandoned the car and discarded a shotgun and ammunition behind an 84 Lumber store.
- Mikeal Stone was identified as the suspect and arrested on Feb 16, 2016; he was indicted for Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited, Disregarding a Police Signal, and Reckless Driving.
- At trial the State presented dash-cam and surveillance video, officer testimony (including a post-Miranda interview), a recorded phone call by Stone, and the officer’s interview of Stone.
- Stone stipulated to his status as a person prohibited from possessing firearms (to avoid admitting his prior conviction) and stipulated that he knew his Feb 23 call was recorded.
- Stone was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 25 years and ten days Level V, suspended after five years. His appellate counsel filed a Rule 26(c) no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; Stone submitted his own points alleging trial counsel ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stone) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to effectively cross-examine witnesses and highlight weaknesses in non-testimonial evidence | Ineffective-assistance claims were not raised in Superior Court and therefore are not properly before this Court on direct appeal | Court refused to consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal and allowed Stone to raise them later under Rule 61 |
| Whether counsel’s references to the recorded call as a "prison call" prejudiced Stone despite stipulation | Counsel twice called the Feb 23 call a “prison call,” undermining the stipulation and prejudicing Stone | The record does not support a meritorious direct-appeal claim; the matter is more appropriately raised in a Rule 61 proceeding | Court declined to adjudicate the claim on direct appeal; permitted postconviction Rule 61 review |
| Whether appellate counsel satisfied Rule 26(c) and may withdraw after filing a no-merit brief | Stone argued trial errors warranted appellate review | Appellate counsel conducted a conscientious review and concluded no arguably appealable issues existed; State moved to affirm | Court found appellate counsel complied with Rule 26(c); granted State’s motion to affirm and deemed motion to withdraw moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal in no-merit appeals)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (appellate counsel duties in representing indigent appellants)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures governing counsel filing a no-merit/Anders brief)
- Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1985) (ineffective-assistance claims generally raised on postconviction review)