Bradley v. State
Decision Date | 03 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 300, 2015,300, 2015 |
Citation | 135 A.3d 748 |
Parties | Earl Bradley, Defendant Below–Appellant, v. State of Delaware, Plaintiff Below–Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Patrick J. Collins, Esquire, Collins & Associates, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.
Elizabeth R. McFarlan, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
VALIHURA
, Justice:
Pending before this Court is an appeal from a June 5, 2015 Opinion of the Superior Court, denying Earl Bradley's (“Bradley”) Second Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief (the “Second Amended Motion”).1 On September 6, 2012, this Court affirmed the underlying judgment of the Superior Court, finding Bradley guilty of fourteen counts of Rape in the First Degree, five counts of Assault in the Second Degree, and five counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child for acts of sexual and physical abuse committed against children.2 Bradley was sentenced to fourteen mandatory life sentences and 164 years at Level V imprisonment for these crimes.
In his 2012 direct appeal, Bradley argued that the search warrant for his former medical practice, BayBees Pediatrics, P.A. (“BayBees Pediatrics”), was defective because the affidavit in support of the search warrant application did not allege facts establishing probable cause that the medical files of certain patients would be found in a white outbuilding on the BayBees Pediatrics property, would be contained in digital format, or would relate to the crimes described in the search warrant application. Bradley also asserted that the police exceeded the scope of the search warrant by proceeding with a general search to locate and seize evidence without probable cause. We rejected Bradley's claims.
Bradley raises three issues in this postconviction appeal. First, he argues that the Superior Court erred when it denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and held that State action did not deprive him of his right to choice of counsel. Second, Bradley contends that the Superior Court erred when it held that his trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective when they failed to object to the presentation of evidence outside of the four corners of the search warrant. Third, he urges that the Superior Court erred in finding that his trial and appellate counsel litigated, in an effective and professionally reasonable manner, the claim that the police had performed an unrestricted search of his property in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Delaware Constitution
.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief.
The facts as they appear in this Court's 2012 Opinion on direct appeal are as follows:
on her for several minutes. When the girl left, she started crying and told her mother that she felt dirty about the incident. Another case involved a six-year-old girl who visited Bradley for Attention Deficit Disorder. Bradley had the child take her clothes off, and attempted to perform a vaginal examination on her. Finally, a seven-year-old girl visited Bradley for excessive urination. He performed two vaginal examinations on her, with the girl draped so that her mother could not see what was occurring. Detective Elliott also learned of a 2005 investigation into Bradley's conduct by the Milford Police Department.
Based on the prior complaints against Bradley, the December 2009 complaint, and additional investigation, police applied for a new search warrant from the Superior Court. This December 15, 2009 search warrant application stated, in relevant part:
ITEMS TO BE SEARCHED FOR AND SEIZED
1. Files to include medical files relating to the treatment and care of listed children, to include paper files, as well as computer files in regards to Child 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and any other alleged Victims that come forward from the time the search warrant is signed, until it is executed.
2. Video and photographs of the below listed location.
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND / OR PLACE(S) AND / OR VEHICLE (S) AND / OR PERSON (S) TO BE SEARCHED:
A two story residence style building, white in color, located at 18259 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE. 19958. There is a yellow Volk[s]wagon, with BayBees Pediatrics displayed on the car. There are signs at the front of the building that display “BayBees Pediatrics[”] and [“]Earl B. Bradley[”] on the signs.
NAME OF OWNER(S), OCCUPANT(S) OR POSSESSOR(S) OF PREMISES AND/OR PLACE(S) AND/OR VEHICLE(S) AND/OR PERSON(S) TO BE SEARCHED:
Earl B. Bradley (DOB–05/10/53), a white male. BayBees Pediatrics, 18259 Coastal Highway, to include a white outbuilding, located on the property.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Purnell v. State
...Super. June 4, 2014) (available at https://courts.delaware.gov/superior/pdf/criminal_rule_61_amend_2014.pdf ).184 See Bradley v. State , 135 A.3d 748, 757 n.24 (Del. 2016) ("We apply the version of the Rule that existed at the time [the defendant] filed his Rule 61 motion."); Brochu v. Stat......
-
Urquhart v. State
...v. State , 75 A.3d 840, 851 (Del. 2013).34 We apply the version of Rule 61 in effect at the time the motion is filed. Bradley v. State , 135 A.3d 748, 757 (Del. 2016). Urquhart filed this motion for postconviction relief in 2016, at which time the 2015 version of Rule 61 was in effect.35 Pr......
-
Bradley v. Warden, Cheshire Corr. Inst.
...Ct. June 5, 2015). Petitioner appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that judgment on March 3, 2016. See Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748, 762 (Del. 2016). Acting pro se, Petitioner filed a second Rule 61 motion on March 29, 2016, followed by a third Rule 61 motion on May 11, 2016.......
-
Cabrera v. State
...2008).22 We apply the version of Rule 61 in effect at the time Cabrera filed his motion for postconviction relief. Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748, 757 n.4 (Del. 2016). The then-applicable Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(3) states:Procedural Default. Any ground for relief that was not ass......