State of Delaware v. Wells.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Delaware Kent County Courthouse 38 The Green Dover, Delaware 19901 Telephone (302) 739-5332 William L. Witham, Jr. Judge July 8, 2004 Mr. Jam es G. W ells Sussex Correctional Center P.O. Box 500 Georgetown, Delaware 19947 Re: State v. Jam es G. W ells I.D. Nos. 0307019531 & 0308002490 Letter Opinion on Motion for New Counsel Dear Mr. Wells: James G. Wells ( Defendant ) has filed a Motion for New Counse l in connec tion with very serious charges involving Attempted Murder, Rape First Deg ree and other charge s. In reviewing the speaking motion filed by the Defendant, the areas of co ncern to him appear to be as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the case is ho peless and his attorney has g iven up an d is not willing to go the extra mile . He has communicated with his attorney only a few times. There has been no motion for bail reduction and he is entitled to having his bail reduced. There has been a failure of his attorney to suppress evidence. His attorney has not filed paperwork to get documents that can help his case. In sum, Defendant believes that he is entitled to new counsel and to have his present counsel removed from the case. The Defendant raises no issues to give this Court grounds to disqualify his counsel for conflict of interest or any objective and substantial grounds for disqualifica tion that this State v. Jam es G. W ells July 8, 2004 Page 2 Court has granted in the past. 1 He is fully entitled to having defense counsel appointed to represent him under the United States and Delaware constitutions and must accept appointed counsel, absent a substantial reason for substitution.2 The Defendant is not guaranteed a mean ingful a ttorney-cli ent relatio nship. 3 A careful rev iew of the response to Defendant s motion reveals that his attorney has indeed devoted considerable resour ces in this case , to include utilizin g a forens ic nurse to review medical rec ords, a psycho -forensic ev aluation, and a retired Delaware State Police investigator to assist the defense. He, along with his staff, have examined the physical evidence seized. Therefore, his attorney has not deemed this case as hopeless nor has he given up . The extra mile is actively be ing driven b y defense co unsel. Likewise, counsel has communicated with the Defendant and kept him informed as evidenced by the letter subm issions to him and to the Court. Defendant has been provided with on going d iscove ry and ha s been k ept abre ast of th e deve lopme nts in the case. Defense counsel has taken a prudent and practical approach to bail and I find the respon se to be approp riate to D efend ant s co mplain t. There must be a le gal and fa ctual basis for any suppression motion and if there is one, counsel is no doubt seeking a basis. In the case at hand, the Defendant has provid ed no bas is for the Co urt to remov e his present attor ney and replace him with a n ew court appo inted one. Accordin gly, the Court finds that the motion for new counsel is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. WLW/dmh 1 Lewis v. State, 757 A.2d 709 (Del. 2000). 2 Henry v. Delaware, 368 F.Supp. 286 (D. Del. 1973). 3 Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983). State v. Jam es G. W ells July 8, 2004 Page 3 oc: xc: Prothonotary Mr. James G. Wells - SCI Paul S. Swierzbinsk i, Esquire Christopher R. Park er, Esquire Marie O C onnor Graha m, Esquire File
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.
