State of Delaware v. Rampmeyer.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY ) ) IK 9 8 -0 8 -0 4 8 4 -R 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) STATE OF DELAWARE v. ROBERT B. RAMPMEYER, ID N o . 9 8 0 8 0 1 4 7 9 7 D e f e n d a n t. ORDER On th is c o n s id e ra tio n 9 th of day of th e D ecember, D e f e n d a n t s 2002, M o tio n upon fo r P o s tc o n v ic tio n R e lie f, t h e C o m m is sio n e r s R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a ti o n , a n d t h e r e c o r d i n t h is c a s e , i t a p p e a r s th a t : 1. The d e f e n d a n t, R obert B. R am pm eyer ( " R a m p m e y e r " ) , p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f U n la w f u l Sexu al In te rc o u rs e 7 7 5 ( a )(4 ). in th e F irs t D e g re e , 1 1 Del. C. § R a m p m e y e r w a s f a c in g t r i a l o n t h e a b o v e c h a r g e s a lo n g w it h e i g h t a d d itio n a l c o u n ts o f U n la w f u l S e x u a l In terc o u rs e in th e F irs t D e g re e a nd o n e c o u n t o f C o n t i n u o u s S e x u a l A b u s e o f a C h i ld , 1 1 Del. C. § 7 7 8 i n v o l v i n g h i s th e n t h i r te e n y e a r o l d d a u g h t e r. State v. Robert B. Rampm eyer ID No. 9808014797 D e c em b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 2. P u r su a n t to a p l ea s a g re e m e n t , R a m p m e y e r w a s s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty -fiv e y e a r s in c a r c e ra tio n , su s p e n d e d a f t e r s e r v i n g f i f t e e n y e a r s m i n i m u m m a n d a to r y . 3. T h e d e f e n d a n t d id n o t a p p e a l h is c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e to th e D e la w a re S u p r e m e C o u r t. I n s te a d h e f i l e d t h e i n s ta n t m o t io n f o r p o s tc o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t to S u p e rio r C o u rt C rim in a l R u le 6 1 . 4. The m a t te r w as r e f e rr e d to th e Court C o m m i s s io n e r f o r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d r e c o m m e n d a ti o n p u r s u a n t t o 1 0 Del. C. § 5 1 2 ( b ) a n d S u p e r i o r C o u r t C i v i l R u le 1 3 2 . T h e C o m m i s s io n e r h a s f i l e d a R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a ti o n r e c o m m e n d i n g t h a t t h e C o u r t d e n y R a m p m e y e r 's m o tio n fo r p o s tc o n v i c t i o n re lie f. No o b j e c ti o n s to t h e R e p o r t h a v e b e e n f i l e d . NOW, THEREFORE, a f t e r c a r e f u l a n d de novo r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o rd in th is a c tio n , a n d fo r th e re a so n s sta te d in th e C o m m i s s io n e r 's R e p o rt and R e c o m m e n d a t io n dated N ovem ber 25, 2002, IT IS ORDERED t h a t t h e t h o u g h t fu l a n d w e l l - r e a s o n e d C o m m i s s io n e r 's R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a ti o n i s a d o p t e d by th e Court and R a m p m e y e r 's P o s t c o n v i c t i o n R e l i e f i s denied. 2 M o tio n fo r State v. Robert B. Rampm eyer ID No. 9808014797 D e c em b e r 9 , 2 0 0 2 _ / s / W i l li a m L . W i t h a m , J r . Judge dm h o c : P r o th o n o ta r y x c : H o n . A n d re a M a y b e e F r eu d J o h n R . G a re y , E s q u ire R o b e r t B . R a m p m e y e r , pro se O r d e r D i s tr i b u t i o n ( w / R e p o r t & R e c o m m e n d a ti o n ) 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. ROBERT B. RAMPMEYER, Defendant. ID No. 9808014797 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cr. A. No. IK98-08-0484-R1 John R. Garey, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Dover, Delaware, for the State of Delaware. Robert B. Rampmeyer, pro se. COMMISSIONER S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Upon Defendant s Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 FREUD, Commissioner November 25, 2002 The defendant Robert B. Rampmeyer, ( Rampmeyer ) pled guilty on March 12, 1999, to one count of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 775(a)(4). Rampmeyer was facing trial on the above charges along with eight additional counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, Del. C. § 775(a)(4) and one count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child, 11 Del. C. § 778. State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 All the charges involved Rampmeyer s then thirteen year old daughter. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Rampmeyer was sentenced to twenty five years incarceration, suspended after serving fifteen years minimum mandatory incarceration for probation. Had Rampmeyer gone to trial and been convicted as charged, he would have faced a fifteen year minimum mandatory sentence on each of the nine counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree and the possibility of nine separate sentences of life imprisonment. Rampmeyer did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the State Supreme Court, instead he filed the instant motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In his motion, Rampmeyer alleges three grounds for relief: Ground One: The attibute (sic) of being incoformity (sic) with the law. The movant has a protected liberty interest in a proceeding under the protection from Abuse Act FAA. Under 10 Del. C. § 1041 part D subchapter III. This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Delaware Constition (sic) 1, 6, 7, 9. Ground Two: The proceeding used to instition (sic) of the charges. The act was intended to protect against domestic violence. A proceeding under this Act in which the petitioner is seeking an order of protection from abuse is a civil proceeding held in Family Court by a Master. Ground Three: The Court lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly a subsequent criminal proceeding based upon the same facts as those alleged in a petition for an order of protection 2 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 of abuse. This is in the Family Court and the hearing is a probable cause hearing by a Judge.1 Rampmeyer alleges he did not raise these issues earlier because his attorney never questioned the proceedings that instituted the alleged charges. U n d e r D e la w a r e L a w t h i s C o u r t m u s t f ir s t d e te r m i n e w h e t h e r R a m p m e y e r h a s m e t th e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u ir e m e n ts o f S u p e rio r C o u rt C rim in a l R u le 6 1 (i) b e fo re it m a y c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s o f h i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f c la i m . 2 T h is i s R a m p m e y e r s f i r s t m o t i o n f o r p o s tc o n v i c t i o n a n d i t w a s f i l e d w i t h i n th r e e y e a r s o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n b e c o m i n g f i n a l , s o th e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 6 1 ( i ) ( 1 ) - re q u irin g f i l i n g w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s - a n d 2 ) - re q u i ri n g t h a t a l l g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f b e p r e s e n te d in th e in itia l R u le 6 1 m o t i o n - a re m e t . raised at th e N o n e o f R a m p m e y e r s c la i m s w e r e p l e a , s e n te n c i n g or on d i re c t appeal, th e r e fo r e , th e y a re b a rr e d b y R u l e 6 1 (i) ( 3 ) , a b s e n t a d e m o n s tr a t i o n o f c a u s e f o r t h e d e f a u l t a n d p r e j u d i c e . O n e c a n a r g u e t h a t e a c h o f R a m p m e y e r s c o n t e n t io n s a r e b a s e d o n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l d u e t o h i s 1 I n o te t h a t R a m p m e y e r s c l a i m s a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e r a i s e d b y a n o t h e r d e f e n d a n t i n State v. Bowers, D e l . S u p e r . 2 Bailey v. State, D e l . S u p r ., 5 8 8 A . 2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 7 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; Younger v. State, D e l . S u p r ., 5 8 0 A . 2 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 4 ( 1 9 9 0 ). 3 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 c a tc h a ll c l a i m th a t h is a tto r n e y n e v e r q u e s tio n e d th e p r o c e e d in g s , th e r e f o r e , h e h a s a lle g e d c a u s e fo r h is f a i l u r e t o h a v e r a i s e d t h e s e i s s u e s e a r li e r . R u l e 6 1 ( i ) ( 3 ) d o e s n o t b a r r e l i e f a s t o t h e s e c la i m s a t t h i s p o i n t s h o u ld R a m p m e y e r d e m o n s t r a te t h a t h i s c o u n s e l w a s i n e f f e c ti v e a n d t h a t h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d b y c o u n s e l 's a c t i o n s . R a m p m e y e r s c o n te n tio n s su p e rf ic ia lly r a is e th e i s s u e o f i n e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l . T o p r e v a i l o n h is c la im s of i n e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta n c e of c o u n se l R a m p m e y e r m u s t m e e t t h e t w o p r o n g t e s t o f Strickland v. Washington. 3 I n th e c o n t e x t o f a g u i l t y p l e a c h a l l e n g e , Strickland r e q u i re s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t s h o w 1 ) th a t c o u n s e l's r e p re s e n ta tio n reaso na blen ess; f e ll and b e lo w 2) an th a t o b j e c ti v e c o u n s e l's sta n d a rd a c ti o n s of w ere p r e ju d i c ia l t o h i m i n t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , b u t f o r c o u n s e l 's e r r o r , h e w o u l d n o t h a v e p le d g u i l t y a n d w o u l d h a v e in s is te d o n g o i n g t o t r i a l a n d t h a t t h e 3 4 6 6 U . S . 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( " Strickland" ) ; Larson v. State, D e l . S u p r . , N o . 2 0 0 , 1 9 9 4 , H a r t n e t t , J . ( J u n e 2 3 , 1 9 9 5 ) ( O R D E R ) ; Albury v. State, D e l . S u p r ., 5 5 1 A . 2 d 5 3 ( 1 9 8 8 ), Skinner v. State, D e l . S u p r ., 6 0 7 A . 2 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ). 4 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 b e e n h i s a c q u i tt a l . 4 re su lt o f a tria l w o u ld h a v e In a d d i t i o n , D e l a w a r e c o u r t s h a v e c o n s i s t e n t ly h e l d t h a t in s e t t i n g f o r t h a c l a i m o f in e f f e c t i v e a s s is t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t m a k e c o n c r e t e a ll e g a ti o n s o f a c tu a l p r e ju d i c e and d i s m i s s a l.5 s u b s ta n t i a t e W hen th e m e x a m in in g or th e ris k sum m ary re p re s e n ta tio n of c o u n s e l p u r s u a n t t o t h e f i r s t p r o n g o f t h e Strickland t e s t , t h e r e i s a s tr o n g p r e s u m p t io n t h a t c o u n s e l 's c o n d u c t w a s p r o f e s s io n a l ly r e a s o n a b l e .6 d e m a n d in g .7 Strickland m a n d a t e s This s ta n d a r d th a t w hen is h ig h l y v ie w in g c o u n s e l 's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t m u s t e n d e a v o r t o e l i m i n a t e t h e d i s to r t i n g e f f e c ts o f h i n d s ig h t . " 8 F o l lo w in g a c o m p le te re v ie w o f th e re c o rd in th is m a t t e r , i t i s a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r th a t R a m p m e y e r h a s f a i l e d 4 Hill v. Lockhart, 4 7 4 U . S . 5 2 , 5 7 , 5 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ); Strickland, 4 6 6 U . S . a t 6 8 8 , 6 9 4 ; Accord Larson v. State, s u p r a a t 3 - 4 ; Blanchfield v. State, D e l . S u p r ., N o . 9 7 , 1 9 9 4 , V e a s e y , C . J . ( O c t . 1 8 , 1 9 9 4 ) ( O R D E R ) ; Skinner v. State, 6 0 7 A . 2 d a t 1 1 7 2 ; Albury v. State, 5 5 1 A . 2 d a t 5 8 . 5 Younger v. State, 5 8 0 A . 2 d a t 5 5 6 ; Skinner v. State, D e l . S u p r . , N o . 3 1 8 , 1 9 9 3 , H o l l a n d , J . ( M a r c h 3 1 , 1 9 9 4 ) (O R D E R ) . 6 Albury v. State, 5 5 1 A . 2 d a t 5 9 ( c i t i n g Strickland, 4 6 6 U . S . 6 8 9 ) ; see also Larson v. State, s u p r a a t 4 ; Flamer v. State, 5 8 5 A . 2 d 7 3 6 a t 7 5 3 ( 1 9 9 0 ). 7 Id. a t 7 5 4 . 8 Strickland, 4 6 6 U . S . a t 6 3 9 . 5 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 t o a l l e g e a n y f a c ts w h a t s o e v e r s u f f i c i e n t t o s u b s t a n t i a t e h is c la im th a t h is atto rn e y w a s i n e f f e c ti v e . I fin d c o u n s e l 's a f f i d a v i t , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e r e c o r d , m o r e c r e d ib l e t h a n R a m p m e y e r s c o n t e n ti o n t h a t h i s c o u n s e l s r e p r e s e n ta ti o n w a s in e f fe c ti v e . R a m p m e y e r w a s fa c in g t r i a l o n m a n y s e r i o u s c h a r g e s a n d r is k e d b e i n g s e n t e n c e d t o n i n e li f e im p r is o n s e n t e n c e s . R a m p m e y e r s c o u n s e l w a s a b l e to n e g o tia te a p l e a b a r g a in w i t h th e S t a te w h i c h re su lte d in o n ly fifte e n y e a rs m in im u m m a n d a to r y in c a rc e ra tio n . R a m p m e y e r a n d h is a t t o r n e y d is c u s se d th e c a s e p r i o r to t h e e n t r y o f t h e p l e a . R am pm eyer w as e x c e p tio n a lly c o n f e s s i o n to t h e p o lic e . T h e c a s e a g a in st s tr o n g g iv e n h is T h e p l e a b a r g a i n w a s c l e a r ly a d v a n ta g e o u s t o R a m p m e y e r . C o u n s e l 's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s c e r ta i n l y w e l l w i t h i n th e r a n g e r e q u i r e d b y Strickland. A d d i ti o n a l ly , w h e n R a m p m e y e r e n t e re d h i s g u i l t y p l e a h e s ta te d he w as p e r fo r m a n c e . s a tis fie d w ith defense c o u n s e l 's H e is b o u n d b y h is sta te m e n t u n le s s h e p r e s e n t s c l e a r a n d c o n v in c i n g e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n tr a r y . 9 C o n s e q u e n t l y , R a m p m e y e r h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h th a t h i s 9 Blanchfield v. State, D e l . S u p r . , N o . 9 7 , 1 9 9 4 , V e a s e y , C . J . ( O c t . 1 8 , 1 9 9 4 ) ( O R D E R ) ; Mapps v. State, D e l . S u p r ., N o . 3 , 1 9 9 4 , H o l l a n d , J . ( M a r c h 1 7 , 1 9 9 4 ) (O R D E R ) (c i t i n g Sullivan v. State, D e l . S u p r . , 6 3 6 A . 2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 7 - 9 3 8 (1 9 9 4 ) ). 6 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 c o u n s e l s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s i n e f f e c t i v e u n d e r th e Strickland t e s t. E v e n a s s u m i n g , arguendo t h a t c o u n s e l s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of R am pm eyer w as som ehow m ust s a tis fy p re ju d i c e . th e In se c o n d se ttin g d e f ic i e n t , R a m p m e y e r p ro n g fo rth a of Strickland t e s t , th e c la im of in e ffe c tiv e a s s is t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , a d e f e n d a n t m u s t m a k e c o n c r e t e a l l e g a ti o n s o f a c tu a l p r e j u d i c e a n d s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e m o r r i s k d i s m i s s a l . 10 R a m p m e y e r s i m p l y a s s e rts t h a t h is c o u n s e l d i d n t q u e s t i o n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s in a n a tt e m p t t o s h o w p r e ju d i c e . R am pm eyer does not suggest w hat m o r e c o u n s e l c o u l d h a v e d o n e . T h i s s t a t e m e n t is c l e a r ly i n s u ff i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h p r e j u d i c e . R a m p m e y e r h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s tr a t e a n y p r e j u d i c e s t e m m i n g f r o m c o u n s e l 's r e p re s e n ta tio n . In d e e d , it is d iffic u lt to im a g in e a n y p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r e j u d i c e in t h is c a s e g i v e n R a m p m e y e r s a b su rd claim s. p r o t e c ti o n f r o m R a m p m e y e r s a s s e r ti o n that a a b u se p ro c e ed in g s o m e h o w c iv i l t ru m p s a f e lo n y s e x u a l a s s a u lt o f a m in o r c h a r g e i s n o n s e n s ic a l and id io tic . N ot o n ly are R a m p m e y e r s c la i m s p r o c e d u r a lly b a rr e d th e y a re s o m e o f th e m o s t a b s u r d I h a v e e v e r s e e n . T h e y h a v e n o m e r it w h a t s o e v e r . 10 Larson v. State, s u p r a a t 5 ; Younger v. State, 5 8 0 A . 2 d a t 5 5 6 . 7 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 F u r th e r m o r e , p r io r to e n t e rin g his g u ilty plea, R a m p m e y e r fille d o u t a G u ilty P le a F o r m in h is o w n h a n d w r i t i n g . R a m p m e y e r w r o t e t h a t h e u n d e r s to o d t h e c o n s t i t u t io n a l r i g h t s h e w a s r e l i n q u i s h in g b y p l e a d in g g u i l t y a n d t h a t h e f r e e ly a n d v o l u n t a r i l y d e c id e d t o p l e a d g u ilty to th e c h arg e l i s te d in th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. R a m p m e y e r i s b o u n d b y t h e s t a t e m e n t s h e m a d e o n th e s ig n e d G u i lt y P l e a F o r m u n l e s s h e p r o v e s o t h e r w i s e b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . 11 I c o n f i d e n t l y f i n d t h a t R am pm eyer e n t e re d h is g u il t y p le a k n o w i n g ly and v o lu n ta rily . I f in d t h a t R a m p m e y e r 's c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d h i m i n a c o m p e t e n t a n d e f fe c t i v e m a n n e r a n d t h a t R a m p m e y e r h a s f a il e d t o c le a r ly d e m o n s tr a t e a n y p r e j u d i c e s t e m m i n g f r o m th e r e p re s e n ta tio n . g u ilty plea w as C o n s e q u e n tly , e n te re d I I a ls o fin d t h a t R a m p m e y e r s k n o w in g ly re c o m m e n d 11 th a t and th e v o lu n t a r i l y . Court deny Hickman v. State, D e l . S u p r . , N o . 2 9 8 , 1 9 9 4 , V e a s e y , C . J . ( O c t . 1 1 , 1 9 9 4 ) ( O R D E R ) ; Smith v. State, D e l . S u p r . , N o . 4 6 5 , 1 9 8 9 , W a l s h , J . ( J a n . 4 , 1 9 9 0 ) ( O R D E R ) . See also Sullivan v. State, D e l . S u p r . , 6 3 6 A . 2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( ru l i n g t h e f a c t t h a t d e f e n d a n t f il l e d o u t T r u t h I n S e n t e n c in g G u i l t y P l e a F o r m i n d e f e n d a n t's o w n h a n d w r i t i n g s u p p o r te d t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t's c o n c l u s io n t h a t d e f e n d a n t's d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u il t y w a s k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a r y ) . 8 State v. Rampmeyer ID No. 9808014797 N ovem ber 25, 2002 R a m p m e y e r s m o t io n for p o s tc o n v i c t i o n r e lie f as p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d . 12 /s/ C o m m is s io n e r A n d r e a M . F r eu d C o m m issio n e r A n d r e a M . F r eu d o c : P r o th o n o t a r y x c : H o n . W i l li a m L . W i t h a m , J r . Joh n R . G arey , Esq . J o h n H . M c D o n a ld , E s q . R obert B . R am pm eyer 12 A d d i t i o n a ll y , a s c l e a r l y n o t e d in b o t h D e f e n s e C o u n s e l s af fid av it an d th e S tate s re ply , eac h o f R am pm ey er s claim s are a l s o e n t ir e l y m e r i tl e s s . 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.