Opinion
No. 228, 2001
Decided: December 10, 2001
Superior Court Kent County. Cr.A. Nos. IK95-09-0365, 0366.
Affirmed
Unpublished Opinion is below.
JIMMY LEE MURPHY, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 228, 2001 Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Decided: December 10, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
ORDER
This 10th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Jimmy Lee Murphy, filed this appeal from the April 24, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In this appeal, Murphy claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for postconviction relief because his ability to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was prejudiced by the loss of his file by the Office of the Public Defender. To the extent Murphy has not argued other grounds to support his appeal that were previously raised, those grounds are deemed waived and will not be addressed by this Court.
Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993). In his motion for postconviction relief, Murphy also argued that: a) the State failed to properly establish the chain of custody; b) his counsel was ineffective; and c) the trial court committed error.
(3) In May 1996, Murphy was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Delivery of Cocaine and Maintaining a Dwelling for the Keeping of Controlled Substances. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to life in prison. This Court affirmed Murphy's convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1996, Hartnett, J., 1997 WL 328603 (May 30, 1997) (ORDER).
(4) In March 1999, Murphy filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court referred to a Commissioner for proposed findings and a recommendation. After ordering a briefing schedule, the Commissioner was notified that Murphy's public defender had retired and was medically incapacitated and, moreover, that the Office of the Public Defender was unable to locate its file relating to Murphy's case. Murphy then filed a modified motion for postconviction relief claiming he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ground that his ability to present his claim of ineffective assistance had been prejudiced by the absence of the file and his counsel's inability to respond to his claim. The Commissioner reviewed the original trial transcript as the best evidence of Murphy's counsel's performance and, on that basis, found that Murphy had not been prejudiced by his counsel's inability to respond, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary and Murphy's claim of ineffective assistance was meritless. The Superior Court adopted the findings of the Commissioner in its April 24, 2001 order denying Murphy's motion for postconviction relief.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g)(2).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1) and (3).
(5) Murphy's claim is without merit. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and there is no evidence of error or abuse of discretion either on the part of the Commissioner or on the part of the Superior Court judge. The Commissioner properly relied on the trial transcript to review Murphy's claim of ineffective assistance and properly exercised her discretion in determining that Murphy had not been prejudiced by his counsel's inability to respond and that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to decide Murphy's claims. There is also no evidence of any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court judge in adopting the findings of the Commissioner and her recommendation to deny Murphy's motion for postconviction relief.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
Murphy's motion to strike the appellee's brief is denied. Supr. Ct. R. 34.