State of Delaware v. Drummond.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORG ETOW N, DE 19947 JUDGE April 24, 2013 Phyllis Drummond SBI No. 00241930 Baylor Women s Correctional Institution 660 Baylor Boulevard New Castle, DE 19720 RE: State of Delaware v. Phyllis Drummond Def. ID No. 0311018699A Date Submitted: April 5, 2013 Dear Ms. Drummond: This is my decision on your sixth Motion for Postconviction Relief. You were convicted of Robbery in the First Degree and Wearing a Disguise during the Commission of a Felony. The convictions arose out of your robbery of the Wilmington Trust Bank in Millsboro, Delaware on November 22, 2003. The Supreme Court affirmed your convictions on August 24, 2005.1 You were represented by Carole J. Dunn, Esquire at trial. The State was represented by Deputy Attorney General Peggy Marshall, Esquire at trial. 1 Drummond v. State of Delaware, 882 A.2d 761, 2005 WL 2475715 (Del. Aug. 24, 2005)(Table). You have raised seven allegations in support of your sixth Motion for Postconviction Relief. You allege that (1) the Court erred by allowing the transcript of your confession to be admitted at your trial, (2) the prosecutor erred when she told the jury to compare your work and driver s license identification pictures to the image of the robber on the bank videotape, (3) the jury instructions did not include all of the applicable law, (4) the Court allegedly told the jury to be slightly influenced by the fact that an information had been filed against you, (5) the prosecutor committed a Brady violation because she did not disclose to you that a witness could not identify you, (6) you were prohibited from testifying at the suppression hearing and trial, and (7) your counsel was ineffective for informing you that you would be impeached if you testified and would face up to 25 years in prison. Before addressing your allegations, I must first determine whether there are procedural bars preventing consideration of your allegations.2 I find all of your allegations in your most recent Motion for Postconviction Relief are procedurally barred by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1)-(4). While there are exceptions to these procedural bars, you have not alleged any facts that would entitle you to the benefit of these exceptions. You could have raised all of your claims long before now. You did not. You also did not provide any adequate reason for your failure to raise these claims earlier. The sole 2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 2 reason you provide now for not raising these claims earlier is your belief that the Court, State, and defense counsel all conspired against you to make you believe everything was proper about your trial. That is conclusory and not sufficient. Therefore, your most recent claims are barred by Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1)-(4). Your sixth Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ E. Scott Bradley E. Scott Bradley 3
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.
