State v. Restrepo-Duque
Decision Date | 16 April 2019 |
Docket Number | ID. No. 1002011017 |
Parties | STATE OF DELAWARE v. JUAN C. RESTREPO-DUQUE, Defendant. |
Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Murder 2nd LIO Murder 1st (F)
RK10-03-0782-01
PDWDCF (F)
RK10-03-0783-01
Theft MV (F)
RK10-06-0458-01
CCDI
Jason C. Cohee, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.
Juan C. Restrepo-Duque, Pro se.
The defendant, Juan C. Restrepo-Duque ("Restrepo-Duque") was found guilty, following a jury trial on November 26, 2014 of one count of Murder in the Second Degree, as a lesser-included offense of Murder in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 635; one count of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 11 Del C. § 1447; one count of Theft of a Motor Vehicle, 11 Del. C. § 841 A; and one count of Carrying a Concealed Dangerous Instrument, 11 Del. C. §1443. A presentence investigation was ordered by the Court. On December 9, 2014 through counsel, Restrepo-Duque filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for a New Trial with a request for a Franks hearing. On January 15, 2015 the Superior Court denied Restrepo-Duque's motions and sentenced him to a total of sixty-eight years incarceration suspended after serving thirty years, fifteen of which were minimum mandatory followed by varying levels of probation.
A timely appeal was filed by Restrepo-Duque's counsel. The issues on appeal were noted by the Delaware Supreme Court as follows:
Restrepo appeals and argues that the Superior Court erred by (1) finding the nighttime search warrant of his residence and his subsequent arrest valid; (2) admitting into evidence Restrepo's statement made to police; and (3) admitting into evidence information found on Wolf's laptop computer and a social media profile and posts linking him to Wolf.1
The Supreme Court, on December 17, 2015, affirmed Restrepo-Duque's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court denied Restrepo-Duque's motion for reargument en banc on January 5, 2016 and the mandate issued.
On January 6, 2017, ten days prior to the expiration of the time allowed under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 to file a Motion for Postconviction Relief, Restrepo- Duque, through counsel, Leo John Ramuno, Esquire, filed a "First Motion for Postconviction Relief". This "First Motion for Postconviction Relief" raised three grounds for relief but did not include any memoranda in support of the motion. The motion also included the following language "The defendant reserves the right to amend this argument to include specific reference to the numerous Err (sic) made by his attorney and to file a memorandum with specific references to the record and case law." By order dated January 24, 2017, the Court gave Restrepo-Duque until April 28, 2017 to file an amended motion to include ALL grounds for relief or to notify the Court that he does not wish to file an amended motion.
On January 31, 2017, the Court was notified by Donna L. Culver, Esquire that Restrepo-Duque's postconviction counsel Mr. Ramunno had been disbarred by the State Supreme Court pursuant to an order dated January 26, 2017, and that she had been appointed as Receiver of Mr. Ramunno's practice. Ms. Culver - requested that Restrepo-Duque's Postconviction Motion therefore be put on hold until Restrepo-Duque could secure new counsel.
On March 17, 2017, Ms. Culver informed the Court by letter that she had discussed the pending motion with Restrepo-Duque and that he was requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in his motion for postconviction relief. On March 21, 2017, the Court granted the request and forwarded the matter to the Office of Conflicts Counsel to appoint counsel to represent Restrepo-Duque. Patrick J. Collins, Esquire was subsequently appointed to represent Restrepo-Duque. Mr. Collins notified the Court on May 8, 2017 that he was awaiting receipt of the file from the Office of Conflicts Counsel and requested permission to notify the Court when he had the file so the Court could then issue a briefing schedule. The Court granted the request.
On March 1, 2018 the Court issued a briefing order giving Mr. Collins, on behalf of Restrepo-Duque, until May 1, 2018 to file either an amended motion for postconviction relief or a statement that the motion will proceed as initially filed or to file or notice of intent to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(7). Mr. Collins subsequently on April 16, 2018, requested an extension of time to file. The Court granted the request and issued a new briefing order. On June 27, 2018, Mr. Collins filed an Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief on behalf of Restrepo-Duque raising one ground for relief.
On July 6, 2018 Restrepo-Duque pro se filed a Motion to Discharge his Postconviction Counsel and to proceed pro se. The Court then scheduled a hearing to assure that Restrepo-Duque was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently asking to proceed pro se.
A hearing was held by the Court on August 1, 2018 at which, Mr. Collins, Deputy Attorney General Jason C. Cohee, on behalf of the State and Restrepo-Duque were all present. Following a colloquy the Court determined that Restrepo-Duque knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily was seeking to proceed pro se without the benefit of counsel.
On August 23, 2018, the Court received the pending "Pro-se Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief signed on August 5, 2018,2 and received and docketed on August 23, 2018. The Court then issued yet another briefing order.3 The matter has completed briefing and is ready for decision.
Following are the facts as set forth by the Delaware Supreme Court:
To continue reading
Request your trial