State v. Benson
| Decision Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1912019316,I.D. 1811007923 |
| Parties | STATE OF DELAWARE, v. EDWARD BENSON, Defendant. |
| Court | Superior Court of Delaware |
Submitted: April 26, 2022
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief and Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief, DENIED.
Edward Benson, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, pro se.
Sehr M. Rana, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Attorney for the State.
This 6th day of June, 2022, upon consideration of Defendant Edward Benson's ("Benson") timely pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief ("MPCR") [1]and Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief ("AMPCR") [2] counsel's affidavit, [3]the State's Response to Benson's Motion for Postconviction Relief and Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief, [4] Benson's Reply, [5] and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:
1. Edward Benson was indicted on April 29, 2019.[6] Elise Wolpert Esquire and Eugene J. Maurer, Esquire were appointed to represent him. On August 16, 2019, counsel filed a Motion to Sever Offenses, [7] a Motion to Suppress Cell Phone Evidence, [8] and a Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Administrative Search.[9] Prior to the scheduled date for the suppression hearing, trial counsel wrote to the Court advising it that it was clear to them that Benson was rejecting their advice and wished to represent himself.[10] On September 10, 2019, the Court held a hearing to address Benson's request to represent himself.[11]Benson's request was granted and he was allowed until September 30th to file any motions.[12]
2. On September 25th, Benson filed his own Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Administrative Search.[13] Benson's motion was a considerably more expansive version of counsel's motion. Also on September 25th, Benson filed a Motion to Compel the State to provide him with the identity of a confidential informant, [14] and a Motion to Dismiss.[15] On October 29th, Benson filed a request for a "Brady Report" requesting a report disclosing whether any of six listed probation officers and police officers involved in his case had proven to be dishonest.[16]Specifically he claimed alleged that any alleged observation of him by law enforcement conducting a drug sale was false.[17] On November 8th, Benson filed a Supplemental Motion to Suppress Evidence arguing that the State had failed to respond to some of his arguments in his original suppression motion and, as a result, the evidence should be suppressed.[18] 3. A hearing was held on November 15, 2019 at which Benson represented himself. Benson's motion to identify confidential informants was withdrawn and his motion to dismiss was denied.[19] Also, Benson's concerns regarding his request for a "Brady Report" were resolved.[20] Other pending matters were deferred for a hearing to be held on a future date.[21]
4. Prior to that hearing, Benson submitted an Addendum (After Viewing Video Evidence) to his Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant Administrative Search.[22] The Addendum detailed Benson's observations from a home security video of the administrative search and reiterated his request to suppress evidence from that search.[23] Benson filed another document captioned Addendum to Argument #2 Probation and Parole Did NOT Have Reasonable Suspicion to Search on December 27, 2019.[24] On January 22, 2020, Benson filed a Motion Requesting a Franks Hearing alleging that a Probation and Parole Officer "knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included false statements in his Arrest/Incident Report" in order to obtain approval to conduct an administrative search.[25]
5. A suppression hearing was held on January 24, 2020.[26] Prior to the hearing, the Court received a letter from the attorney for Kathleen V. Gott ("Gott"), a witness Benson wanted to call to testify at the hearing.[27] The attorney advised the Court that, if called, Gott would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.[28] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court denied Benson's Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Administrative Search and Motion to Suppress Cell Phone Evidence.[29]
6. On February 7, 2020, Benson filed another motion to suppress evidence that was seized during the administrative search based on what he argued were inconsistencies in the testimony of State's witnesses at the suppression hearing.[30]On February 13th, Benson wrote to the Court asking that counsel be appointed to represent him.[31] The Court gave Benson the option to have prior counsel reappointed or to represent himself.[32] On March 3, 2020, Benson accepted prior counsel's reappointment.[33] On May 31, counsel moved to withdraw again, citing a breakdown in the relationship between Ms. Wolpert and Benson.[34] On June 14, 2021, that motion was denied after an extended discussion between the Court, counsel, and Benson during which Benson agree to work cooperatively with Ms. Wolpert.[35]
7. Benson pled guilty on July 26, 2021, to Possession of a Firearm by Person Prohibited ("PFBPP") and Act of Intimidation. As part of the plea agreement, the State dropped all of the other charges pending against Benson and agreed to drop charges against Benson's girlfriend Lashania Baynard and his son J'Qwan Benson.[36] The plea agreement contemplated an agreed upon sentence for the PFBPP charge of 15 years at Level V suspended after 10 years for 12 months at Level IV, suspended after six months for 12 months at Level III.[37] For the Act of Intimidation charge, the sentencing agreement called for eight years at Level V suspended for 12 months at Level III.[38] The Court imposed the agreed upon recommended sentences.[39] 8. Benson filed this timely first MPCR pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 pro se on January 4, 2022, [40] accompanied by a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.[41] On January 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Expand the Record, [42] and denied the Motion for Appointment of Counsel.[43] On January 31, 2022, Defendant filed an Amended MPCR ("AMPCR").[44] Ms. Wolpert submitted an affidavit in response to Benson's MPCR and AMPCR on March 29, 2022.[45] Benson replied to the State's Response on May 26, 2022.[46]
9. In the MPCR, Benson makes three claims for relief. First, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel ("IAC") stating, [47] Second, he claims he was coerced into a guilty plea and confession, stating "Counsel colluded with the State to use my son as leverage to coerce me into entering a guilty plea at the last minute during my Final Case Review."[48] Third, he argues that there were multiple Brady violations, stating [49] Benson filed the AMPCR on January 31, 2022 supplementing his original IAC claims.[50] In the AMPCR, he alleges, [51] Additionally, Benson argues, "Counsel failed to move the Court to suppress the seized evidence based on the Randolph issue[.]"[52]
10. On March 29, 2022, Ms. Wolpert filed an affidavit in which she disputes the claimed basis for the IAC claims, denies any collusion with the State to coerce Benson's guilty plea, and asserts there were no Brady violations.[53] 11. The State responded on April 27, 2022.[54] In its response, the State conceded that Benson's MPCR, as amended, is timely, not repetitive, and not subject to the bars of Rules 61(i)(3) and (4) since it alleges IAC.[55] The State argues that when Benson voluntarily entered his guilty plea, he waived any defects that occurred prior to the entry of that plea.[56] Further, the State argues that Benson fails to articulate how counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.[57] He also fails to establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.[58] Turning to Benson's claim that his guilty plea and confession were coerced, the State contends that claim is factually without merit and belied by Benson's statement in his plea colloquy.[59] Regarding Benson's claims that his counsel withheld transcripts from body-worm cameras from him, the State represents that there were no such transcripts because the State Police did not wear body-worn cameras.[60] Further, an audio recording of an on-scene statement made by the defendant was provided to Benson's counsel in discovery.[61] 12. Benson submitted a reply to the State's response on May 26, 2022.[62] In it he reiterates his claim that a Probation and Parole Officer intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth provided false information in order to obtain approval for an administrative search as well as expanding on his other arguments.[63]
13. Before addressing the merits of a defendant's motion for postconviction relief, the Court must first apply the procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i).[64] If a procedural bar exists, then the Court will not consider the merits of the postconviction claim.[65] Under Delaware Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial