Opinion
IK94-04-0143 through IK94-04-0145-R1
Submitted: August 6, 2001
Decided: August 17, 2001
ORDER
Upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) The defendant, Jeffrey L. Crippen ("Crippen") was found guilty by a jury on October 20, 1994 of one count of Delivery of Cocaine, 16 Del. C. § 4751, one count of Trafficking Cocaine, 16 Del. C. § 4753(a)(2)(a), and one count of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 512. During the second day of his trial, Crippen failed to return after the lunch break. The trial continued without Crippen and resulted in the aforementioned finding of guilt. Crippen was subsequently apprehended in Georgia a year later. On October 27, 1995 the Court sentenced Crippen to 25 years incarceration followed by probation. A substantial portion of the jail time was minimum mandatory time based upon Crippen's criminal history. Following sentencing, Crippen's counsel moved to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict of interest which arose following the sentencing. The Court granted the motion and appointed other counsel to represent Crippen on appeal.
A timely notice of appeal was filed. Crippen's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c). In the motion to withdraw, appellate counsel represented that he conducted a conscientious review of the record and concluded that no meritorious issues existed. By letter counsel informed Crippen of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and attached a copy of the motion to withdraw and accompanying brief which identified four arguable issues for the Court's consideration. The four issues were: 1) The Superior Court abused its discretion in denying Crippen's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds of unnecessary delay by the State in presenting the charges to the Grand Jury; 2) The Superior Court erred in permitting the trial to continue after Crippen failed to return to Court on the second day of trial; 3) The Superior Court erred in its ruling on the chain of custody of the drug evidence; and 4) That there was insufficient evidence to convict Crippen. Crippen was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation but raised no additional issues. The Delaware Supreme Court on appeal affirmed each of Crippen's convictions and sentences. Next, Crippen filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. He raises four grounds for relief including ineffective assistance of counsel.
Crippen v. State, Del. Supr., No. 434, 1995, Hartnett, J. (June 20, 1997) (ORDER).
(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be dismissed as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) and (4) for failure to prove cause and prejudice and as previously adjudicated.
(3) No objections to the Report have been filed.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated July 20, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(A) The Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court;
(B) The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DISMISSED.