Opinion
Cr.A.# IN96-02-0930, IN96-02-0932.
Submitted: August 17, 1999.
Decided: February 8, 2000.
Charles Mobley's pro se Motion for Post-Conviction Relief — Motion Denied
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Mobley was caught in the act of rifling the car of Jeffrey Bartels and apprehended after a short chase on foot. He was convicted of burglary in the third degree and attempted misdemeanor theft. He elected to represent himself on appeal and his convictions were affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. He has now moved for post conviction relief pursuant to Criminal Rule 61. None of Mobley's claims has merit. They are as follows:
1) Eight Postponements — Depriving me of fast and speedy trial: Defendant was tried on February 20, 1997. He was arrested on January 13th 1996 and released on bail the same day. There were four trial continuances between the date of his arrest and his conviction. While this 13 month gap is longer than preferable, Mobley fails to assert and prejudice from the delay. This claim is without merit.
2) Conflict of interest: Mobley provides no facts supporting this claim and none are apparent from the record. This claim is also without merit.
3) Incriminating statements against me by my own attorney: Mobley points out no incriminating statements. There are none in the record. This claim to has no merit.
4) Failing to notify me of his plan to plea to a lesser charge: Since there was no plea, this claim not only has no merit it makes no sense.
5) My attorney advising me against testifying in my defense: Given Mobley extensive criminal record, his attorney advice was most likely good advice. In any event the Court advised Mobley of his right to testify against his attorney's advice and Mobley declined.
6) Failure to object to the admission of photographic evidence taken by the prosecutor and the defendant Mr. Bartels the day of the trial one year later: If Mobley's attorney had objected to this evidence his objection would have been overruled. The photographs were properly authenticated and in any event were of minor significance.
7) Inadequately prepared my case for trial by not telling me that he knew the victim in my case and they were friends. Mr. Bartel's ex-Prosecutor/Attorney: Mr. Bartels is an ex-prosecutor and presently does some criminal defense work. Undoubtedly he was acquainted with Mr. McDonald but there is no evidence of prejudice to the defendant in the record. On the contrary it appears that Mr. Bartels was vigorously cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. This assertion also has no merit.
8) Failed to pursue certain arguments, or take certain actions in my defense — pertaining to the number of witnesses which in reality was only one — But not Mr. Bartel's: Mobley fails to set forth what arguments or action should have been take by Mr. McDonald which might have resulted in his acquittal. Given the circumstances of his arrest I doubt that there are any.
9) Failed to question police officer about his procedure and his failure to take finger prints: The police officer was questioned about his failure to take finger prints. This claim is also without merit.
10) Failure to question the identification of me while handcuffed in the backseat of the police car, transcripts page 71, 72: There was no identification of Mobley while handcuffed in the back of the police car. No merit to this claim either.
11) The fact that Mr. Bartels is an ex-prosecutor was kept from myself and the jury the entire trial proceedings: Mobley fails to explain how telling him or the jury that Mr. Bartels was an ex-prosecutor would have resulted in a verdict of not guilty. This final assertion is also without merit.
The defendant's motion is Denied . IT IS SO ORDERED .