State v. Martin

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Cr. ID. No. 1306002171
)
TIMOTHY MARTIN, )
)
Defendant. )
Submitted: June 6, 2016
Decided: July 11, 2016
Upon Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation That
Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief
Should be Denied
ADOPTED
ORDER
This 11th day of July, 2016, the Court has considered the Commissioner’s
Report and Recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, and
the relevant proceedings below.
On September 3, 2014, Defendant Timothy Martin filed a pro se motion for
postconviction relief. Subsequently, Defendant was assigned counsel (“Rule 61
Counsel”). The motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner in
accordance with 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 1, 2015, Rule 61
Counsel filed a Supplement to Motion for Postconviction Relief and Request to
Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Petitioner’s Pro Se OCME Claim
(“Supplemental Motion”). After the Supplemental Motion was submitted, the
Commissioner enlarged the record by directing Defendant’s Trial Counsel to
submit an Affidavit responding to Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. On October 13, 2015, Trial Counsel submitted an Affidavit. On January
29, 2016, the State filed a response to the Defendant’s Supplemental Motion. On
February 29, 2016, Rule 61 Counsel filed a Reply Brief in support of the
Supplemental Motion. On May 25, 2016, the Commissioner issued the Report and
Recommendation. The Commissioner recommended that Defendant’s Motion for
Postconviction Relief be denied.
“Within ten days after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact
and recommendations . . . any party may serve and file written objections.”1
Neither party has filed an objection.
The Court holds that the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation
dated May 25, 2016, should be adopted for the reasons set forth therein. The
Commissioner’s findings are not clearly erroneous, are not contrary to law, and are
not an abuse of discretion. 2
1
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(ii).
2
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(4)(iv).
THEREFORE, the Court hereby accepts the Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
The Honorable Mary M. Johnston