State v. Destafney

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
v. )
) I.D. # 2201008017
CHARLES DESTAFNEY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
Submitted: April 22, 2024
Decided: May 22, 2024
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief – Denied.
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel – Denied.
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing – Denied.
INTRODUCTION
1. After pleading guilty to possession of a firearm by a person prohibited
and being sentenced, Charles DeStafney (“DeStafney”) filed a Motion for
Postconviction Relief (the “PCR Motion”). He asserts several alleged defects in
how the Court, the State, and the police handled his case. He also asserts an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The actions of these parties, DeStafney
alleges, resulted in him being coerced into pleading guilty. Had he not been coerced,
DeStafney says he would have gone to trial.
2. DeStafney also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
1
3. Finally, DeStafney filed a Motion for Discovery of Evidence and an
Evidentiary Hearing (the “Discovery Motion”). By this motion, DeStafney seeks to
compel production of the firearm and ammunition confiscated when he was arrested
and the police bodycam video.
4. DeStafney knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently pleaded guilty, and
therefore, his attack on the evidence against him and alleged procedural defects are
procedurally barred. While his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not
procedurally barred, DeStafney failed to make the requisite showing to substantiate
his claim. Accordingly, the PCR Motion is DENIED.
5. No exceptional circumstances require this Court to exercise its
discretion to appoint counsel for DeStafney. Therefore, the Motion for Appointment
of Counsel is DENIED.
6. Because the PCR Motion is denied, the Discovery Motion is DENIED
as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
DeStafney is arrested and indicted.
7. On January 21, 2022, police responded to DeStafney’s residence with
an arrest warrant for another individual residing in the home.1 While in the
basement, officers plainly observed several items resembling drug paraphernalia,
1
For background purposes, the facts alleged against Destafney are derived from the arrest warrant.
2
such as syringes, rubber tie-offs, a digital scale, and 12-gauge shotgun shells. Other
residents of the home indicated that the area where these items were found was
DeStafney’s bedroom area.
8. Police found DeStafney hiding on the first floor of the residence.
Officers advised DeStafney that the above items were discovered in his bedroom
area. DeStafney then told police he possessed a non-functioning, disassembled
shotgun. DeStafney consented to a search of his bedroom area, where police located
a disassembled double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun in a dresser drawer. Police also
found ten rounds of 12-gauge shotgun shells on top of a desk in a tin can. Because
DeStafney was a person prohibited due to a prior felony conviction, he was arrested.
9. DeStafney was indicted on two charges: (1) Possession of a Firearm by
a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”); and (2) Possession of Ammunition by a Person
Prohibited.
DeStafney pleads guilty and is sentenced.
10. DeStafney pleaded guilty to the PFBPP charge on January 23, 2023.
DeStafney signed the Truth-In-Sentencing Plea Form, in which he acknowledged
that he was waiving his constitutional rights and faced up to 15 years in prison, 3
years of which was mandatory. DeStafney also signed the Plea Agreement, pleading
guilty to the count of PFBPP, which reflected an agreed upon sentencing
3
recommendation of 15 years at Level V, suspended after 3 years, followed by 1 year
at Level III.
11. The Court conducted a detailed plea colloquy with DeStafney. The
Court reviewed the Truth-In-Sentencing Plea Form with DeStafney, who stated that
he understood the rights he was waiving and that he was voluntarily waiving those
rights.2 DeStafney advised the Court that he was pleading guilty because he
committed the alleged offense.3 The Court also reviewed the potential penalties for
the charge, which DeStafney confirmed he understood.4 DeStafney was asked
whether he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation, to which he replied he
was.5 DeStafney confirmed that he was not forced or threatened to accept the plea.6
12. Based on the colloquy, the Court found that DeStafney accepted the
plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.7 He was then immediately sentenced.
13. Prior to imposition of the sentence, defense counsel addressed the
Court. Defense counsel advised the Court that DeStafney confessed to possessing
the firearm and that he led police to the location of the firearm.8 DeStafney did not
2
Transcript (“Tr.”) at p. 5.
3
Id. at p. 5.
4
Id. at pp. 8-9.
5
Id. at p. 10.
6
Id. at p. 4.
7
Id. at p. 10.
8
Id. at pp. 10-11. Contrary to his statements on the record at the plea hearing, DeStafney’s motion
asserts that when he was asked if guns were in the house, he said “no.” PCR Motion, Aff. at ¶ 4.
4
object to this statement. Indeed, referring to the firearm, DeStafney told the Court:
“I went and got it” for the officers.9 Defense counsel also advised the Court that
DeStafney said the gun was an old, disassembled shotgun that he believed was
inoperable.10 Defense counsel then acknowledged that “under the statute, it doesn’t
make any difference even if [it’s] disassembled, [or] whether it’s operable or not.”11
Again, DeStafney did not object to this statement.
14. The Court next addressed DeStafney directly, advising him that it
would be “very difficult, if not impossible, for [him] to go back and say I didn’t want
to enter that plea” once the sentence was imposed.12 Defense counsel reiterated that
he told DeStafney that he had the choice to go to trial or enter into the plea.13 Upon
further questioning from the Court, DeStafney said “Yes, sentence me under that
plea.”14 The Court asked again whether DeStafney wanted to proceed with the plea,
to which he responded “Yes.”15
15. The Court imposed a sentence of 15 years at Level V, suspended after
3 years, followed by one year of probation at Level III. The minimum mandatory
sentence for the PFBPP charge is 3 years.
9
Tr. at p. 26.
10
Id. at pp. 14-15.
11
Id. at p. 15.
12
Id. at p. 23.
13
Id. at p. 24.
14
Id. at p. 25.
15
Id. at p. 17.
5
16. DeStafney did not file a direct appeal.
The PCR Motion
17. DeStafney filed the PCR Motion on December 27, 2023.16 On February
23, 2024, Ralph Wilkinson, Esquire, who had represented DeStafney, filed an
affidavit in response.17 The State filed a response to the PCR Motion on March 25,
2024.18 DeStafney was given until April 22, 2024, to file a reply, but did not do so.
The Court will review the PCR Motion based on the current record.
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
18. DeStafney raises three arguments in the PCR Motion.
(a) The Court lacked jurisdiction over his conviction and sentencing because
the gun was a disassembled 1892 weapon, of which he was never in possession.
(b) Misconduct by the sentencing judge, defense counsel, the State, and police
resulted in him being coerced into pleading guilty. He bases his judicial misconduct
assertion on the sentencing Judge “testify[ing] as a firearm expert” at the plea
hearing.19 DeStafney asserts prosecutorial misconduct based on the State’s failure
to hire a firearm expert to reassemble the gun, confirm its functionality, and
authenticate its manufacture date.20 DeStafney asserts police misconduct based on
16
D.I. 16.
17
D.I. 28.
18
D.I. 29.
19
D.I. 16.
20
Id.
6
the officers’ alleged illegal search of his person and threatening his mother with false
charges.
(c) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. DeStafney’s Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel argument is based on his assertion that his counsel failed to file any pretrial
motions, a direct appeal, or any postconviction motions.21 DeStafney claims his
counsel should have filed (i) a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to convict
because the firearm was an 1892 nonfunctional gun or, in the alternative, (ii) a direct
appeal or postconviction motion because the sentencing Judge testified as a firearm
expert.22 DeStafney also states that counsel did not meet with him, provide him with
any Rule 16 discovery, or conduct any investigation.
19. In former counsel’s affidavit, he explained that no expert was hired and
no motions were filed because, in his judgment, there were no legal grounds to do
so.23 Counsel met with DeStafney twice in the months leading up to the plea hearing
and again on the day of, where they reviewed the discovery against DeStafney and
his defenses.24 Counsel explained to DeStafney that he had a right to go to trial or
he could accept the plea.25 Finally, former counsel stated that he in no way coerced
DeStafney into accepting the plea offer.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
D.I. 28, at ¶¶ 1-2.
24
Id. at ¶ 2.
25
Id. at ¶ 3.
7
20. The State responded to the PCR Motion, concurring with the assertions
made by former counsel, and arguing that DeStafney’s claims are meritless for a
variety of reasons.26
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61
Procedural bars
21. Rule 61 is the exclusive remedy for those “in custody under a
sentence … seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction.”27 The Rule balances
finality “against … the important role of the courts in preventing injustice.”28 Before
addressing the merits of a defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, however, the
court must review the motion to determine whether any of Rule 61(i)’s procedural
bars apply.29 If a motion is procedurally barred, the Court will not consider the
merits of the postconviction motion.30
22. A motion for postconviction relief will be barred if it is: (1) filed more
than one year after the conviction becomes final;31 or (2) if it asserts a newly
26
D.I. 29.
27
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1).
28
Zebroski v. State, 12 A.3d 1115, 1120 (Del. 2010) (citation omitted).
29
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
30
Id.31
“A judgment of conviction is final . . . [30 days after the Court imposes sentence] if the defendant
does not file a direct appeal.” Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
8
recognized, retroactively applied, right more than one year after the right was first
recognized.32
23. Second or subsequent motions for postconviction relief are generally
barred as repetitive.33 The court will consider a repetitive motion only if the movant
was convicted at trial and the motion pleads with particularity either: (1) actual
innocence;34 or (2) the application of a newly recognized, retroactively applied, rule
of constitutional law rendering the conviction invalid.35
24. Grounds for relief “not asserted in the proceedings leading to the
judgment of conviction” are barred as procedurally defaulted unless the movant can
show “cause for relief” and “prejudice from [the] violation.”36 Grounds for relief
formerly adjudicated are also procedurally barred.37
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
25. Strickland v. Washington38 established the well-known standard for
ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims. A successful IAC claim requires
that the movant demonstrate that: (1) the counsel’s performance was deficient; and
32
Id.33
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2).
34
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i).
35
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(ii).
36
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).
37
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
38
466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811 (Del. 2013) (applying the “well-worn”
Strickland standards).
9
(2) the deficiencies prejudiced the movant by depriving him or her of a fair trial with
reliable results.39
26. To prove counsel’s deficiency, a defendant must show that the
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.40 Moreover, a
defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of prejudice; “mere
allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice.”41 The court presumes that counsel’s
conduct is reasonable, and it is the defendant’s burden to prove otherwise.42 A
successful IAC claim requires a showing “that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.”43 A movant must satisfy the proof requirement of both prongs to succeed
on an IAC claim. Failure to do so on either prong thwarts the claim in its entirety,
and the court need not address the remaining prong.44
39
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
40
Id. at 687-88.
41
Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996).
42
Strickland, 446 U.S. at 689.
43
Id. at 694; see also State v. Smith, 2023 WL 9059509 (Del. Super. Dec. 31, 2023) (“In the context
of a plea challenge, it is not sufficient for the defendant to claim simply that his counsel was
deficient. The defendant must also establish that counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there
was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiencies, the defendant would not have
taken a plea but would have insisted on going to trial.”).
44
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
10
ANALYSIS
DeStafney’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea bars all
grounds except the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claim.
27. The PCR Motion is timely, and it is DeStafney’s first postconviction
relief motion, and thus, it is not repetitive. Accordingly, it is not barred by Rule
61(i)(1) or (2).
28. Absent cause, “a defendant who enters a knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary guilty plea waives his right to challenge errors or defects preceding the
entry of the plea.”45 “To establish cause, the movant must demonstrate that an
external impediment prevented him from raising the issue earlier” and that he
suffered actual prejudice.46 “Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,”
a defendant is bound by his representations during the plea colloquy.47
29. Here, the Court engaged in a thorough colloquy with DeStafney at the
plea hearing. DeStafney signed the Truth-In-Sentencing Plea Form, confirmed he
understood that he was waiving the identified Constitutional rights, and that he was
facing at least 3 years at Level V. He also stated that he was not forced or threatened
45
Terrero-Ovalles v. State, 211 A.3d 1107 (TABLE), 2019 WL 2355019, at *1-2 (Del. June 3,
2019).
46
Id. at *1.
47
Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1231 (Del. 2003); Hopkins v. State, 309 A.3d 423 (TABLE),
2023 WL 8296427, at *2 (Del. Dec. 1, 2023); Dawud v. State, 226 A.3d 201 (TABLE), 2020 WL
917345, at *2 (Del. Feb. 26, 2020) (“As a result of his knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty
plea, Dawud has waived his claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the timing of the
preliminary hearing and indictment, the credibility of the person who reported him to the police,
the lack of a victim, the amount of bail, and his Miranda rights.”)
11
into accepting the plea. Further, he admitted that he committed the offense of
PFBPP.48
30. During the sentencing phase of the hearing, DeStafney claimed he had
not seen the gun before he went to the basement with the police and “found it.”49 He
then stated that he “really [didn’t] want to enter this plea. No, I don’t. But I don’t
want to – I want to go home.”50 The Court then gave DeStafney “a real clear choice,”
and asked whether he wanted to plead guilty or had he changed his mind. DeStafney
responded: “Yes, sentence me under that plea[.]”51
31. DeStafney is bound by the representations he made to the Court during
the plea colloquy and he has provided no grounds, let alone clear and convincing
evidence, to find cause to disregard those representations.
32. DeStafney’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea bars his
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence against him and any alleged procedural
defects. Thus, the claims of judicial,52 prosecutorial, and police misconduct are
barred under Rule 61(i)(3).
48
Tr. at p. 8.
49
Id. at pp. 21, 23.
50
Id. at pp. 23-24.
51
Id. at p. 25. DeStafney also said: “They were going to charge my mother for that gun is what
they came up out of the basement and said they were going to do. That’s why I took the charge.”
The Court then asked DeStafney if he wished to proceed with the plea, to which he responded
“Yes.” Id. at pp. 25-27. To the extent that the Motion rests on the assertion that the police
threatened his mother, he raised this issue at the hearing and then clearly waived it. This is another
ground on which the Motion is barred.
52
As the transcript shows, there was no testimony by the sentencing judge.
12
DeStafney’s IAC claim fails.
33. Because DeStafney pled guilty, he must show “that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for [his] counsel’s unprofessional errors,” he would not have
pleaded guilty but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.” 53 “A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”54
34. Counsel explained to DeStafney his right to go to trial or take a plea
and what the plea entailed.55 Counsel also had at least two video conferences with
DeStafney before the plea hearing and conferred with DeStafney on the day of his
scheduled court appearance and reviewed the discovery with him.56 There is no
evidence that DeStafney was coerced into accepting the plea.57
35. DeStafney claims that counsel should have hired an expert to determine
whether the firearm was operable and the year of its manufacture. DeStafney
speculates that an expert would substantiate his claim that the firearm was inoperable
and that it was an antique, manufactured in 1892.
36. DeStafney was charged with, and pled guilty to, PFBPP. Under the
statute, a person who has been convicted of a felony is “prohibited from purchasing,
53
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
54
Id.
55
D.I. 28, at 2.
56
Id.
57
Tr. at p. 24.
13
owning, possessing or controlling a deadly weapon.58 A “deadly weapon” is defined
to include a “firearm.”59 A “firearm” is defined to include “any weapon from which
a shot, projectile or other object may be discharged by force of combustion,
explosive, gas and/or mechanical means, whether operable or inoperable, loaded or
unloaded.”60 Accordingly, even if an expert could have offered the opinions that
DeStafney wants, it would not have changed the outcome. If the firearm was
inoperable, as he claims, he was still facing the same charge and the sentence he
received. This point was raised by his counsel at the plea hearing.
37. Further, whether or not the firearm was antique makes no difference in
the crime with which DeStafney was charged and to which he pled guilty, or to the
sentence he received.
38. Finally, DeStafney provides no basis on which counsel should have (or
could have) filed any pretrial motions or a direct appeal.
39. The Court conducted a detailed plea colloquy with DeStafney, during
which he confirmed he spoke with counsel and was satisfied with the representation.
DeStafney’s statements to the Court during the plea colloquy are presumed
truthful.61 DeStafney has not shown that former counsel made any unprofessional
58
11 Del. C. § 1448(a).
59
11 Del. C. § 222(6).
60
11 Del. C. § 222(13) (emphasis added).
61
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).
14
errors, let alone errors that would have caused him to plead not guilty and proceed
to a trial instead.
Appointment of counsel is denied.
40. Rule 61(e)(3) governs the appointment of counsel for first
postconviction relief motions in guilty plea cases.62 When a defendant pleads guilty,
the court has the discretion to appoint counsel under Rule 61(e)(3) if:
(i) the conviction has been affirmed by final order upon direct appellate
review or direct appellate review is unavailable; (ii) the motion sets
forth a substantial claim that the movant received ineffective assistance
of counsel in relation to the plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (iii)
granting the motion would result in vacatur of the judgment of
conviction for which the movant is in custody; and (iv) specific
exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel.63
41. DeStafney has not raised a substantial claim that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Additionally, no other exceptional circumstances require this
Court to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel.
The Discovery Motion is moot.
42. DeStafney sought to compel the State to produce the firearm and
bodycam video to challenge the merits of the charges asserted against him. Because
62
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(3).
63
Id.15
the Court found that DeStafney’s claims are procedurally barred and he did not
substantiate his IAC claim, the Discovery Motion is moot. Therefore, it is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
43. DeStafney’s challenges to the evidence against him and alleged
procedural defects, which occurred before his guilty plea, are barred by his knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea. He has failed to demonstrate his counsel was
ineffective. There has been no showing of unprofessional errors that would have
caused him to plead not guilty and instead proceed to trial. Additionally, DeStafney
has not satisfied the requirements under Rule 61(e)(3) for appointment of counsel.
Therefore, DeStafney’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, Motion for Appointment
of Counsel, and Motion for Discovery are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kathleen M. Miller
Judge Kathleen M. Miller
16