State v. Sammons ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    STATE OF DELAWARE                       )
    )      ID No. 1107004907
    v.                                    )      In and For Kent County
    )
    THOMAS W. SAMMONS,                      )
    )
    Defendant.                )
    O RDER
    On this 21st day of November, 2016, upon consideration of the Defendant’s
    Motion For      Postconviction Relief       and Motion for     Reconsideration,     the
    Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears
    that:
    1. The Defendant, Thomas W. Sammons (“Sammons”), was found guilty on
    April 25, 2012, to one count of Burglary in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 825; one
    count of Robbery in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 831; and one count of Criminal
    Mischief, 11 Del. C. § 811. Several other counts were either dismissed or the State
    entered a nolle prosequis. The State filed a motion to declare Sammons an habitual
    offender. Following a hearing, the Court declared Sammons an habitual offender. On
    August 31, 2012, Sammons was sentenced to life in prison pursuant to 11 Del. C. §
    4214(b).
    2. The Defendant, through counsel, appealed his conviction to the Delaware
    Supreme Court. The two issues on appeal were: “the trial judge erred in declaring
    Sammons an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(b) based on a prior
    conviction in the State of Florida for burglary; and second, that the trial judge erred
    State v. Sammons
    November 21, 2016
    Case I.D. 1107004907
    in declaring Sammons an habitual offender, when the issue of rehabilitation in light
    of Sammons’ organic dysfunctions, was not addressed.”1 The Supreme Court, on
    March 14, 2013, affirmed Sammons’ conviction and sentence.2
    3. Defendant filed, pro se, a Motion For Postconviction Relief pursuant to
    Superior Court Criminal Rule 61and requested the Court to appoint counsel. The
    Court granted appointment of counsel and a briefing schedule was issued. On
    November 3, 2014 counsel filed an Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief.
    Counsel requested the Court schedule an Evidentiary Hearing. In the motion counsel
    raised the following grounds for relief: (1) trial counsel failed to properly advise
    Sammons in relation to his rejection of the plea offer; (2) trial counsel failed to limit
    prior bad acts and for failing to request a limiting instruction; (3) trial counsel failed
    to move to suppress the identifications of Sammons by Ms. Knepp; (4) failed to call
    alibi witnesses; (5) Sammons’ constitutional right to a fair trial was denied due to the
    misconduct of a Deputy Attorney General; and (6) Sammons’ constitutional right to
    have a fair trial was denied due to cumulative due process error.
    4. The Commissioner denied the request for an Evidentiary Hearing on the
    nature of the claims. Next, counsel then moved for reconsideration of the denial. The
    Court ordered trial counsel to supplement the response to the amended motion and
    allowed the defense and the State to respond.
    5. The Court referred this motion and the Motion for Reconsideration to
    1
    Sammons v. State, 
    68 A.3d 192
     (Del. 2013).
    2
    
    Id. at 194
    .
    2
    State v. Sammons
    November 21, 2016
    Case I.D. 1107004907
    Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. §512(b) and
    Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
    law.
    6. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that
    the Motion For Postconviction Relief should be denied, because it is procedurally
    barred by Superior Court Rule 61 (i)(3) for failure to prove cause and prejudice. The
    Commissioner concluded that an Evidentiary Hearing is not necessary and found that
    trial counsel’s supplemental Affidavit provides sufficient information to avoid an
    Evidentiary Hearing.
    7. Counsel filed an Appeal from Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation.
    The appeal does not advance Sammons’ motions in any substantive way.
    8. The State filed a response to Defendant’s Appeal from the Commissioner’s
    Report and Recommendation.
    NOW, THEREFORE, after de novo review of the record in this action, and
    for reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated October
    13, 2016,
    IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation is
    adopted by the Court, and the Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction is denied as
    procedurally barred. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
    /s/ Robert B. Young
    J.
    RBY/lmc
    oc: Prothonotary
    3
    State v. Sammons
    November 21, 2016
    Case I.D. 1107004907
    cc:   The Honorable Andrea M. Freud
    Lindsay A. Taylor, Esq.
    Suzanne Macpherson-Johnson, Esq.
    Christopher S. Koyste, Esq.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1107004907

Judges: Young J.

Filed Date: 11/21/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/21/2016