State v. Owens

Full title: State of Delaware v. Thomas J. Owens

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County

Date published: Jul 17, 2009

Def ID No. 0607003633 (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 17, 2009)

Opinion

Def ID No. 0607003633.

Date Submitted: April 15, 2009.

Decided: July 17, 2009.

Thomas J. Owens, Smyrna, DE.

E. SCOTT BRADLEY, Judge

Dear Mr. Owens:

This is my decision on your Motion for Postconviction Relief. The State of Delaware charged you with one count each of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Attempted Sexual Exploitation of a Child, two counts of Sexual Solicitation of a Child, and six counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree. The charges arose out of incidents involving you and your wife's 15-year-old granddaughter. A jury found you guilty of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Sexual Solicitation of a Child and Attempted Sexual Solicitation of a Child. The Supreme Court upheld your convictions in a decision dated October 22, 2008.¹

1 Thomas J. Owens v. State of Delaware, 962 A.2d 257, 2008 WL 4659801 (Del. Oct. 22, 2008)(TABLE).

I sentenced you to eight years at Supervision Level V, suspended after four years at Supervision Level V for probation. This is your first motion for postconviction relief and it was filed in a timely manner. Michael R. Abram, Esquire, represented you at trial. Deputy Attorney General Adam Gelof, Esquire, represented the State. You allege that (1) Abram's representation of you was deficient, and (2) the Court erred by not allowing Abram to properly cross-examine the victim. Abram filed an affidavit responding to your allegations. I have concluded that, given the unfounded nature of your allegations, a hearing is not necessary.

I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A. Pretrial discovery

^{2 3 4 5 6 7}

2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

3 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Id. at 687.

4 Id. at 687.

5 Id. at 687.

6 State v. Coleman, 2003 WL 22092724 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 2003).

7 Coleman, 2003 WL at *2, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.

You also allege that Abram should have cross-examined the victim about the incident in New Jersey. Abram considered doing this, but did not do so because there was no way to establish that the victim's allegations were false. The state of New Jersey had brought charges against the man identified by the victim as having sexually abused her. The man was a convicted sex offender and the charges against him were pending at the time of your trial. Thus, at the time, there had been no determination by anyone that the victim's allegations were false. Abram's decision not to pursue this irrelevant line of questioning was appropriate and reasonable.

B. Computer pictures

II. Court Error

^{8 9 10 11}

8 Transcript at B-25.

9 Transcript at B-197-198.

10 Owens v. State, 962 A.2d 257, 2008 WL 4659801, at *2 (Del. Oct. 22, 2008).

11 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3).

CONCLUSION

Your Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied for the reasons set forth herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.