State v. Tingle

Full title: RE: STATE v. JERMAINE T. TINGLE, Defendant

Court: Superior Court of Delaware

Date published: Jul 7, 2004

ID No. 0205005760 (R-1) (Del. Super. Ct. Jul. 7, 2004)

Opinion

ID No. 0205005760 (R-1).

July 7, 2004.

T. HENLEY GRAVES, Resident Judge.

Dear Mr. Tingle:

The Motion for Postconviction Relief which you filed on June 23, 2004 in Kent County, Delaware has been forwarded to me as I was your trial judge. After reviewing your application together with the file, I find that your application should be dismissed.

Following trial, you were sentenced on June 21, 2004 on the charges of possession of cocaine, maintaining a dwelling or a vehicle, and consumption of marijuana. With the benefit of your history, the Court sentenced you to three years Level 5 on the possession of cocaine. The Court sentenced you to three years Level 5 on the maintaining charge with the ability of that to be suspended immediately upon successful completion of Key for Level 4 CREST. On the marijuana charge, you received six months suspended for six months Level 3 CREST Aftercare.

In your Rule 61 application, you make claims that your appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of an illegal or unlawful search. You then discuss in Grounds 2 and 3 why you think the search was illegal.

Prior to trial, a suppression hearing took place and the issues concerning your claims that an illegal or unlawful search took place were addressed by the Court.

My reading of the Supreme Court's decision affirming your conviction is that the allegation of an illegal search was the sole issue presented. I defer to the Supreme Court's review of the facts of the case and its decision finding the officers had articulable suspicion to approach you, that based upon your flight, they had reason to secure you, and they had reason to do a pat-down search for weapons. During that pat-down search, the officer felt what he immediately described to be, in his opinion, crack cocaine. See Tingle v. State, 840 A.2d 642 (Table), 2004 WL 47030 (Del. 2004).

Therefore, your claim that your attorney did not file your request and raise the issue of an unlawful search with the Supreme Court is factually inaccurate. Therefore, your application must be dismissed.

I also note that it is procedurally barred as there has been a previous adjudication by Superior Court and Supreme Court as to the issues on which you now base your complaints. See Superior Court Rule 61(i)(4).

Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.