State of Delaware v. Anderson, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) ) GEORGE W. ANDERSON ) EDWARD ARMISTEAD ) DOMINICK BAILEY ) JAMAAR S. BANKS ) JAMIE BARKLEY ) MICHAEL R. BETHARD ) HARRY W. BLENDT ) HARRY W. BLENDT ) JOHN E. BRADLEY ) DONALD BRATCHER ) CHRISTOPHER D. BREWER a/k/a ) CHRISTOPHER JERNIGAN ) WARREN BROOKS ) DONALD BROWN ) ANTOINE L. BURGESS ) CARRIE A. BUTLER ) SHON CALDWELL ) LEMAR C. CAMPBELL ) SHAUN CARPENTER ) RICHARD S. CARTER ) MICHAEL A. CHARLES ) ROBERTO CHERRICKS ) KYLE COHEN ) MARK S. COLEMAN ) MARVIS COLONA ) BOSTON K. CONNOR ) NICOLE J. COX ) BRIAN CROSSMAN ) BRADLEY A. DAVIS ) BLAISE DEJESUS ) MYKAL DEMPSTER ) ID No. 1209011176 ID No. 1310009200 ID No. 1103021255 ID No. 1211016583 ID No. 1204013602 ID No. 1304009788 ID No. 1203008725 ID No. 1307025699 ID No. 1211008008 ID No. 1002000575 ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 1205008276 1110009338 1211009891 1304022461 1204012409 1306008038 1012001879 0912005873 1204018496 1212007009 1212012552 1211023034 1304014873 1311015254 1307018245 1308001215 1010009425 1202012547 1205010386 1205019774A MICHAEL D. DIX LAMAR J. DOZIER KURT S. DUPREE ABBYDALE N. FINNEY a/k/a ABBYDALE SEABROOKS WESLEY J. FISHER CHRISTOPHER T. FOOTE CHARLES J. FRAZIER JONATHAN FUENTES-ALMO PATRICK R. FURBECK SEANNE M. GODWIN JEREMY GORDY JERRI GREEN IRVING HALL KYIEM HALL QUAHEEM HALL LUKE A. HARRIS TRAVIS O. HARRISON JUSTIN HOLDERBAUM RANDY HOLLENBAUGH DONALD L. HORSEY QUAYSHAUN JOHNSON SAVANNAH JOHNSON ANTOINE J. JONES ALAN M. JORDAN ASHTON D. JORDAN ANDREA L. KING ANDREA L. KING DAVID KING DESTINY G. LABERGE KELLY LAWLOR DASHERE LEWIS DOMINICK LITTLE CHARLES L. LIVINGSTON CRYSTAL LYSINGER EARL MANLOVE MARK MARTIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 2 1306018495 1307000703 0912010393 1211007648 1110018244 1210028521 1103017392 1105013476 1305018534 1008014466 1311003205 1304014924 0909021763 0912005273 1310003660 1001004518 1106004624 1204006263 1304023077 1103014276 1007025439 1303011652 0810005948 1102017234 1303009650 1111011434 1111015209 0912001839 1208006617 1304023378 1103018539 1305012566 1109010352 1212012158 1303004575 1305024514 NICK MARTINEZ DWAYNE N. MATTHEWS KEVIN MAYO BRANDON A. MCCLAIN DAVID H. MCCURLEY ANTHONY J. MCNEIL MICHAEL D. MESSICK JEROME A. MILLER RODNEY L. MILLER JAMES T. MOORE JAMES MOSES JUSTIN R. OHL ELLIOTT OWENS TAQUEN OWENS KYE PABON JASON PAJULA DEMARCE PARKS COREY PATRICK EDWARD J. POTTS DEVRON POWELL STEPHONE POWELL CORY PRICE DAVID A. RANSHAW MICHAEL A. RATLEDGE KEITH RODRIGUEZ ELWOOD J. ROSS CHARLES RUNKLE EDWIN A. SANTIAGO ILIANA M. SANTIAGO ILIANA M. SANTIAGO BRIAN M. SATTERFIELD TYRONE N. SAYLES ADAM SCOTT ALPHONSO SIMMONS SAMUEL SMITH BRENDA STRATTON RAKIM STRICKLAND ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 3 1309011710 1210000641 1306012872 1111004748 1004005351 1202010211 1306000151 1211017948 1208012411 1308001321 1303014531 1308018748 0905018717 1304013720 1306024965 1301017432 1309002130 1001021083 1003022526 1209014758 1205007336 1304020013 1307023483 1212013114 1302021122 1012018727 1206015047 1302015909 1205018158 1209017661 1309017247 1205012091 1111006658 1303023438 1302018753 1211003582 1202012572 KINON D. TEAT CHARLES TILGHMAN KEVIN M. TINSON TERRANCE M. TROTMON ANTHONY TROWER JAQUITA P. TURNAGE TAQUION TURNER TAQUION TURNER BOBBY WARD ANDREA WILHELM ALLEN WILLIAMS WARREN WILSON ASHMERE WRIGHT DEMETRIUS M. WRIGHT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. ID No. 0909012957 0912010611 0911010977 1207017483 1309013276 0911004091 1109001897 1310001534 1309018552 1308016595 1309013336 1302018219 1212013498 1312012266 ORDER Today, the Court consolidates and resolves a number of similarly situated Postconviction Motions.1 All of the cases denoted in the caption (“captioned cases” or “defendants”) were filed by the Public Defenders’s Office (“PD”) and involve drug convictions based on guilty pleas. It appears the defendants’ only contention is that the problems discovered in 2014 at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”) require the drug convictions be vacated. Specifically, the defendants essential argument is that he/she is entitled to relief because the State failed to provide Brady2 material, in the form of impeachment evidence, prior to entry into the plea agreements. In the alternative, the defendants contend that, even if the State was not required to disclose general impeachment 1 The Court notes that it requested– and considered – the parties’ position with respect to whether these group files should be held to a rule to show cause or summary dismissal under Criminal Procedure Rule 61(d)(4). 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 4 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 evidence prior to entry into the plea agreements, the State’s failure to disclose evidence of government misconduct makes the pleas involuntary. Upon consideration of the facts, arguments and legal authorities set forth in the captioned cases’ individual Postconviction Motions, Supplements to Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, Supplements in response to the December 3, 2014 decision in State v. Absher, et. al.,3 Supplements of Factual Record (Dollard), including an Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief on December 17, 2014 in selected cases, the State’s Response in opposition thereto, Supplement to Factual Record and Reply to the State’s March 3, 2015 Response, Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, and applicable law, it appears to the Court that: 1. On January 14, 2014, Tyrone Walker was on trial in this Court for drug dealing charges.4 During trial, an evidence envelope was presented to an officer to confirm that the substance in the envelope was the substance found on the Defendant at the time of arrest. When the officer opened the envelope, the relevant drugs were missing.5 This sparked an investigation into the practices of the OCME resulting in a finding of multiple cases of pilfering drugs by employees for their own personal use.6 Due to the revelation and subsequent investigation, “[t]he State has brought charges against persons in the chain of custody in many of the pending cases. The 3 2014 WL 7010788, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 3, 2014). 4 State v. Brinkley, 2015 WL 867097, at *1 (Del. Super. Feb. 6, 2015). 5 Id. 6 Id. 5 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 Court ruled that there was evidence of pilfering or stealing of drugs by a person or persons for their own use.”7 However, as the Supreme Court of Delaware recently confirmed: The situation at the OCME is, to be sure, disturbing and regrettable. But to date, the investigation has yielded no indication that the OCME scandal involved the planting of false evidence to wrongly convict criminal defendants. Rather, it has mostly consisted of instances where employees stole evidence that they knew to be illegal narcotics for resale and personal use. That is, that misconduct occurred because the drugs tested by the OCME were in fact illegal drugs desired by users.8 2. As an initial matter, the PD recently filed an amended motion for postconviction relief in State of Delaware v. Nicole Cox, ID No. 1308001215, which among other things, challenges the constitutionality of this Court’s June 4, 2014 amendment to Criminal Procedure Rule 61. The defendant contends, “[b]ecause the limitations established in the June amendment are not reasonably tailored to a legitimate purpose, they violate the due process clause of both the state and federal constitution and the open courts clause of the Delaware constitution.” The constitutional claim is without merit. The defendant provides no binding authority and falls demonstratively short of bridging the analytical gap between its contentions and any recognized constitutional violation. Moreover, the Delaware Supreme Court has found no constitutional issues with the amendment given the recent decisions in 7 State v. West, 2014 WL 7466714, at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 16, 2014) (citing State v. Irwin, 2014 WL 6734821 (Del. Super. Nov. 17, 2014). 8 Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1202-03 (Del. 2015). 6 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 Brown v. State 9 and Dickson v. State .10 3. Additionally, in the above referenced motion, the defendant also suggests that the Court amended Rule 61 with the insidious purpose of denying defendants due process and a full and fair hearing on potential Brady claims. Implicit in the argument is the unsubstantiated allegation that the Court cares more about judicial economy then upholding its oath of office. In addition to being patently false, it is highly offensive. Rather than excoriate the motion of counsel, I can only assume, at best, that counsel is overzealous in its advocacy for the defendants. At worst, this motion does not further the clients’ interests and lacks an appropriate level of professionalism and respect for the Court. 4. The motions state that the relevant drugs recovered or seized were sent to the OCME for testing. None of the test results were attached to the motions. A Supplement of Factual Record was submitted for some of the captioned cases indicating the OCME test results were received by the defendant prior to entering a guilty plea. However, there has been no claim, or evidence to suggest, that the admissions at the time of the guilty pleas were conditioned on an OCME report. Additionally, in many of the captioned cases, preliminary hearings were waived, and guilty pleas were entered prior to any testing by the OCME. In other cases, the defendant “is neither incarcerated nor on probation due to the age of the case. 9 10 108 A. 3d 1201 (Del. 2015). 2015 WL 783376, at *1 (Del. Feb. 23, 2015). 7 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 Therefore, there can be no Rule 61 relief as the matter is moot.”11 Accordingly, those cases are summarily dismissed. 5. In all of the captioned cases, the defendants participated in a colloquy before this Court. The defendants were questioned carefully about the factual basis for his or her plea at which time the defendants freely acknowledge the illicit nature of the drugs as well as his or her guilt. The files reflect that there was a factual basis for each plea and that the defendants understood the pleas and their consequences, including the potential sentences. While accepting their pleas, the defendants knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their rights, including any complaints about the chain of custody of the drug evidence in their cases. 6. Recently, the Supreme Court of Delaware addressed the fallout from the OCME in the context of a similar Brady claim. The Court held: We agree with the State that evidence of the OCME investigation did not affect the validity of Brown’s guilty plea and that Brown is not entitled to a new trial. In United States v. Ruiz, the United States Supreme Court held that the “Constitution, in respect to a defendant's awareness of relevant circumstances, does not require complete knowledge of the relevant circumstances, but permits a court to accept a guilty plea, with its accompanying waiver of various constitutional rights, despite various forms of misapprehension under which a defendant might labor.” Therefore, the “Constitution does not require the [State] to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant,” because a defendant who pleads guilty decides to forgo “not only a fair trial, but also other 11 State v. Absher, 2014 WL 7010788, at *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 3, 2014) (citing Ruiz v. State, 956 A.2d 643 (Del. 2008). 8 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 accompanying constitutional guarantees” and “impeachment information is special in relation to the fairness of a trial, not in respect to whether a plea is voluntary.”12 The Court went on to explain: In this case, Brown admitted that he was guilty of possessing and dealing heroin. The plea colloquy reflects that Brown knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pled guilty. By pleading guilty, Brown gave up his right to trial and his right to learn of any impeachment evidence. Brown is bound by the statements he made to the Superior Court before his plea was accepted, and Ruiz prevents him from reopening his case to make claims that do not address his guilt, and involve impeachment evidence that would only be relevant at trial.13 7. Following the holding of Brown, “[w]hen a defendant like [those in the captioned cases] has admitted in his [or her] plea colloquy that he [or she] possessed [drugs]..., the OCME investigation provides no logical or just basis to upset his [or her] conviction.”14 Accordingly, the State’s failure – even where the pleas took place after the discovery of the OCME scandal – to provide Brady material, in the form of impeachment evidence has no bearing on the validity of the captioned cases’ guilty pleas. 8. In Brown, the Court limited its holding in a footnote with the following 12 Brown, 108 A. 3d at 1205-06 (citing United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 623 (2002)). 13 Id. at 1206 (internal citations omitted). 14 Id. at 1202. (The PD’s recent Supplement to Factual Record and Reply to the State’s March 3, 2015 Response attempts to distinguish the Brown ruling from the captioned cases. The Court is not persuaded.) 9 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 explanation: As in Ruiz, the impeachment evidence that came to light after Brown pled guilty and was sentenced did not go to his actual innocence or affect the voluntariness of his plea.... [O]ur decision is limited to the case before it and fact patterns like it, and that if materially different situations emerge, they must be dealt with on their precise facts. For example, where a defendant entered a reluctant, but fully informed, no contest or guilty plea to lesser charges with no prison sentence to avoid the risk of a lengthy prison sentence on more serious charges, while proclaiming his factual innocence and expressing incredulity that the substance he claimed was legal had tested to be illegal narcotics, a later revelation that evidence planting had occurred in the relevant police department and that the defendant had been one of the victims of that misconduct, that situation could raise distinct considerations from those in this case, where the defendant freely admitted that he possessed illegal drugs.15 Here, the captioned cases present no such factual scenario. In all of the cases, there are no claims of actual innocence. The mere existence of the ongoing scandal at the OCME does not ipso facto create a colorable claim that there was a miscarriage of justice nor does it create a strong inference that the defendants are actually innocent. Finally, without specific facts like those referenced in the Brown footnote, the situation at the OCME does not warrant a finding of actual or presumptive involuntariness of the guilty pleas. The defendants have the burden to show clear and convincing evidence to contradict each of the admissions made to the Court.16 The 15 Id. At 1206 n. 30. 16 Sommerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 10 State v. George W. Anderson, et al. April 20, 2015 defendants have failed to do so and are therefore bound by their knowing, voluntary, and intelligent representations to the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not vacate the defendants’ guilty pleas and therefore the captioned cases’ Rule 61 motions are summarily DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William L. Witham, Jr. Hon. William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge Dated: April 20, 2015 WLW/dmh oc: Prothonotary cc: Hon. T. Henley Graves Hon. William C. Carpenter, Jr. Kathleen M. Jennings, Esquire Stephen R. Welch, Jr., Esquire J. Brendan O’Neill, Esquire Nicole M. Walker, Esquire William T. Deely, Esquire 11

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.