State v. Green
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE v. SEAN GREEN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I.D. No. 1310001581 Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016 ORDER (i) SUMMARILY DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF AND (ii) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMMISSIONER’S ORDER This 21st day of November, 2016 upon consideration of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Rule 61 Motion”) filed by Sean Green, SBI# 00588348; the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation That Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief Should Be Denied (the “Report”) issued by Superior Court Commissioner Lynne M. Parker on October 11, 2016; Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner’s Order (the “Response”) filed by Sean Green on October 20, 2016; and the record in this case: 1) The Court referred the Motion to a Commissioner pursuant to 10 Del. C. §512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 621 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. 1 Hereafter, any Superior Court Criminal Rule referenced in this Order will be cited as “Rule __.” 2) On October 11, 2016, Commissioner Parker filed the Report. In the Report, Commissioner Parker reports and recommends that the Rule 61 Motion be summarily dismissed. The Prothonotary docketed the Report on October 11, 2016. 3) The Report was served on Mr. Green. Under Rule 62(4)(ii), any objections to the Report needed to be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the Report. Mr. Green filed the Response on October 20, 2016. The Court will consider Mr. Green’s Response to the Report as timely. NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for reasons stated in the Report, IT IS FOUND AND DETERMINED that the Report is not clearly erroneous, is not contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion, and IT IS FOUND AND DETERMINED that the argument in the Response fails to properly understand the Report’s discussion of the video, what is on the video and, therefore, the video’s relevance to the underlying criminal action;2 and IT IS ORDERED that the Report, including its recommendation, is ADOPTED by the Court, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED. 2 The Report explains that the video contains no footage of the actual incident. Moreover, the Report notes that the Defendant’s counsel viewed the video and noted that it was of such poor quality that it did not add anything to the defense case. Mr. Green contends that the video had to contain exculpatory evidence or else it would not have been provided under Rule 16. This argument is too facile. It is the Court’s experience that parties in criminal cases do exchange more items, documents, pictures and alike under Rule 16 than just Brady material. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Commissioner’s Report is DENIED. /s/ Eric M. Davis Eric M. Davis, Judge Original to Prothonotary: cc: Commissioner Lynne M. Parker Sean Green, SBI# 00588348 Matthew C. Bloom, Esquire
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.
