State v. Wooten

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. WILLIAM WOOTEN, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Feb 12, 2003

ID No. 87S01528DI (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 12, 2003)

Opinion

ID No. 87S01528DI

February 12, 2003

Lisa M. Schwind, Esquire Assistant Public Defender

James W. Adkins, Esquire

T. Henley Graves

Dear Counsel:

Before the Court is an application by the Defendant for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4504. Of the six factors the Court must consider under the Statute, there are only two which are relevant for discussion and primarily only one which remains an obstacle as to the Defendant.

This is a case in which the Defendant pled guilty but mentally ill to murder in the 2nd degree and kidnaping in the 2nd degree on July 20, 1988. The original charge was murder in the 1st degree.

At the plea, the Defendant acknowledged he committed the crime and he acknowledged that the evidence against him was "pretty strong".

As part of the plea negotiations within the State of Delaware, the State of Maryland agreed not to prosecute the Defendant on charges arising from the victim in this case (the episodes began in Maryland) and the State of Maryland also agreed not to prosecute Mr. Wooten for another murder case.

Under 11 Del. C. § 4504(a)(4), it is necessary for the applicant to present "a prima facie case that the evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that the evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, degraded, contaminated, altered, or replaced in any material aspect". The applicant acknowledges that the means of storing the tee shirt in plastic bags has now been determined to be improper as mildew may form and thus degrade the DNA. Therefore, it is unknown whether or not there are any epithelial skin cells on the tee shirt that could even be tested.

The real problem for the Defendant is 11 Del. C. § 4504 (a)(5). Under this subsection, the Court may consider granting the Motion if the testing can produce new scientific and non-cumulative evidence materially relevant to "the person's assertion of actual innocence". Nowhere in the pleadings, nor in my review of this lengthy file, can I find anything concerning the Defendant's actual assertion of innocence. In light of the Defendant's admission of the evidence against him and in light of the Defendant's admission that he committed the acts involved in this crime, I find that the Defendant has not met 11 Del. C. § 4504(a)(5) and therefore the application must be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.