Opinion
ID. No. 0203008352A.
Submitted: August 31, 2006.
Decided: October 26, 2006.
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief. Denied.
Dashawn Brooks, pro se.
Marsha J. White, Esquire, Office of the Attorney General, for the State of Delaware.
OPINION
Dashawn Brooks was convicted of murder second degree, conspiracy second degree and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the shooting death of Kerwin Redding. This Court sentenced Defendant to ten years on the murder charge, ten years for PFDCF and probation on the conspiracy charge. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Brooks has filed a motion for postconviction relief in which he alleges numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on such a claim, Brooks must show first that counsel's conduct fell below an objectively reasonable standard. He must also show that this conduct caused him actual prejudice, undermining the reliability of the outcome of the proceedings.
Brooks v. State, 2004 WL 1874700 (Del.Supr.).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).
Defendant's first allegation is that he should not have received ten years for the weapons conviction. He argues that his attorney was not familiar with his record and misrepresented his criminal history to the Court at the sentencing hearing. He also asserts that defense counsel failed to raise this issue on appeal.
Defense counsel has filed an affidavit in which he states that he read Defendant's presentence report and familiarized himself with Defendant's record prior to the sentencing hearing. The transcript of the hearing shows that defense counsel argued that the mitigating factors in Defendant's history warranted nothing more than the minimum mandatory sentence. The Court in its discretion imposed ten years on the weapons charge, which is within the statutory range of 3 to 25 years and presents no appealable issue. The Court concludes that defense counsel was not ineffective in his representation at the sentencing hearing.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1447A(b))(2001) and § 4205(b)(2)) (2004).
Defendant raises several issues in regard to a newspaper article about the trial. Defendant argues that defense counsel failed to "investigate" any possible prejudice resulting from the article and failed to raise this issue on appeal. In his affidavit, defense counsel asserts that he relied on the Court's finding that the article was neutral and the Court's instruction to the jury. The record shows that this Court raised the issue of the newspaper story and asked the jurors if any of them had seen it. Juror number 4 replied in the affirmative. The Court found the article that the article was neutral in content and did not contain any prejudicial information. The Court also instructed the jurors to avoid any media coverage or personal discussion of the case. Counsel's reliance on the Court's resolution of this issue did not fall below reasonable professional standards and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Finally, Defendant argues that defense counsel should have moved to dismiss the conspiracy charge because his co-defendant Charles White stated that he never planned with Defendant to shoot Mr. Redding. Defense counsel states that there was strong evidence of the conspiracy and that he saw no basis for a motion for judgment of acquittal.
The evidence showed that White and Brooks had both had violent altercations with Redding in the days leading up to the murder, including the shooting of Defendant's brother the previous day. At the time Redding was murdered, White and Brooks were both armed. They had been told by another person that Redding was at the corner of Concord Avenue and Monroe Street in Wilmington. Brooks and White walked up Concord Avenue toward Redding until White turned into an alley and Defendant continued on Concord until he stopped to shoot Redding.
Contrary to Defendant's assertion that White stated that he never conspired with Defendant to shoot Redding, White testified that he and Brooks understood their intention to shoot Mr. Redding as they walked toward him. In his three statements to police, White implicated himself in the crimes more clearly with each consecutive statement. Based on this evidence, defense counsel did not act unreasonably in choosing not to move to dismiss the conspiracy charge or raise the issue on appeal. For these reasons, Dashawn Brooks' motion for postconviction relief is Denied. It Is So ORDERED.