State v. Scott

Full title: STATE OF DELAWARE v. WILLIAM M. SCOTT, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware, Kent County

Date published: Sep 19, 2007

ID Nos. 9805012033, IK98-05-0510-R1, IK98-05-0511-R1, IK98-07-0092-R1, IK98-07-0096-R1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 19, 2007)

Opinion

ID Nos. 9805012033, IK98-05-0510-R1, IK98-05-0511-R1, IK98-07-0092-R1, IK98-07-0096-R1.

September 19, 2007.

ORDER

WILLIAM C. CARPENTER, Jr, Judge.

On this 19^th day of September, 2007, upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, the following is found by the Court:

(1) The Defendant, William Scott, was found guilty of Murder in the First Degree and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The Defendant appealed his conviction to the Delaware Supreme Court, and that conviction was affirmed on March 28, 2001. The Defendant subsequently filed the present Rule 61 motion which raised ineffective assistance of counsel and a Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) confrontation issue.

(2) The matter was referred to the Court Commissioner for findings of fact and recommendation pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Civil Rule 132. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Defendant's motion for postconviction relief. The Defendant has objected to the Report.

(3)After a careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendations dated March 19, 2007, it is ordered that the thoughtful and well-reasoned Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court and Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied .

(4) As more thoroughly set forth in the Commissioner's Report, Defendant actually benefitted from a charging error made by the State which required it to establish a higher mental state than would normally be required for Murder First Degree. If the Defendant's trial counsel's conduct proceeded as suggested by the Defendant's Motion, the jury would have had an even lower threshold to reach a decision that the Defendant was guilty. Obviously such actions would not have been in the best interest of the Defendant nor would it affect the outcome of this litigation.

(5) For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.