Opinion
Case No. 1404005828A RRC
12-21-2015
RE: State v. Djavon P. Holland
Caterina Gatto, Esquire
Julie Finocchiaro, Esquire
Deputy Attorneys General
Department of Justice
820 N. French Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Djavon P. Holland
SBI # 766283
Howard R, Young Correctional Center.
1301 E. 12th Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 On Defendant's "Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal." DENIED. On Defendant's "Motion for a New Trial [because of] Unfair Jury Selection." DENIED. Dear Ms. Gatto, Ms. Finocchiaro, and Mr. Holland:
This letter opinion addresses Defendant's pro se "Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal" and "Motion for a New Trial [because of] Unfair Jury Selection." Defendant filed both Motions following a six-day trial where he was found guilty on September 21, 2015, of Home Invasion; Assault Second Degree; Criminal Mischief; two counts of Attempted Robbery First Degree; and four counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. On the first day of trial, Defendant discharged his privately-retained attorney, Anthony A. Figliola, Jr., who was then appointed as Defendant's standby counsel.
Following the jury's verdict, Defendant filed two letters with this Court, which the Court will treat as motions. Defendant filed a "Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal," on September 23, 2015. That Motion reads in its entirety:
In accordance with Rule 29(c), I would like this informal letter to serve as a [M]otion for a Judgement of Acquittal. I am aware that I have 7[]days[,] but I am locked in 18 hours a day and due to [the] facility's policy I am not allowed in the law library[,] so I really don't have a way of making the [M]otion formal.
I am asking for the dismissal of counts III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X, on the grounds of an inconsistent verdict and insufficient evidence to support the charges.
(1) For counts III [and] IV, there was an inconsist[e]nt verdict and insufficient evidence to support the charges.
(2) For counts VII, VIII, IX, [and] X, [t]hey[]both carry the same element which is physical injury making the conviction of both charges a double jeop[a]rdy issue.
Wherefore, based on the [a]bove[-]stated[,] I pray that the [M]otion for Judg[]ment of [A]cquittal be [g]ranted.
Defendant also filed a letter on September 25, 2015, which the Court will characterize as a "Motion for a New Trial [because of] Unfair Jury Selection." That Motion reads:
Being as though I'm incarcerated and racing against time[,] please forgive my request being informal.
Pursuant to Rule 33 in the Superior Court Criminal Rules[,] I would like my [M]otion for a New Trial to be [g]ranted on the grounds of a[n] [u]nfair [j]ury [s]election. There were only 2 black men out of 95 jury members and one man, [name redacted], was excused for financial [h]ardships and [name redacted] was never called especially after being thoroughly questioned about his criminal background. This is prejudice towards the defendant being as though I have a right to be [j]udged by a jury of my peers. Black men would more so be considered a peer of mine.
Wherefore[,] the defendant prays that my [M]otion for a New [T]rial be [g]ranted.
Both of these Motions lack merit. The Court notes that Defendant chose to represent himself at trial and filed both of these Motions pro se. The Court also understands that in the interest of justice, the Court may hold "pro se litigants to a less[-]exacting standard when reviewing their pleadings." However, even viewing these motions through a less-exacting lens, Defendant's assertions are completely conclusory, vague, and not supported by any legal authority. Therefore, Defendant's "Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal" and "Motion for a New Trial [because of] Unfair Jury Selection" are DENIED.
Maddox v. Isaacs, 2013 WL 2297030, at* 2 (Del. Super. May 7, 2013). See also Maddox v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2014 WL 1155312, at* 2 (Del. Super. Feb. 28, 2014) ("While the Court may grant pro se litigants reasonable accommodations where possible based on their lack of familiarity with the law, procedural requirements will not be relaxed."); Alston v. State, 2002 WL 184247, at 1 (Del. Super. Jan. 28, 2002) ("While procedural requirements are not relaxed for any type of litigant (barring extraordinary circumstances or to prevent substantial injustice), the Court may grant pro se litigants some accommodations that do not affect the substantive rights of those parties involved in the case at bar."); McGonigle v. George H. Burns, Inc., 2001 WL 1079036, at* 2 (Del. Super. September 4, 2001) ("While procedural requirements are not relaxed for any type of litigant (barring extraordinary circumstances or to prevent substantive injustice), the Court may grant pro se [c]laimants accommodations that do not affect the substantive rights of those parties involved in the case at bar.").
Defendant filed another letter dated December 14, 2015, requesting that he "be appointed counsel for appeal." No action will be taken on this request prior to sentencing on January 15, 2016. --------
Very truly yours, Enclosures
RRC/jmf
cc: Prothonotary
Investigative Services (with enclosures)
Anthony A. Figliola, Jr., Esquire (with enclosures)