Case Title: Cabrera v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 538, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
LUIS G. CABRERA,                       
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 538, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. IN97-04-1074 thru 
                                      1077
 
Submitted: March 5, 2004  
   Decided: April 26, 2004   
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 26th day of April 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Luis G. Cabrera, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s October 8, 2003 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
In 1998, Cabrera was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of two 
counts of Murder in the First Degree and related charges in connection with the 
 
 
-2-
murder of Fundador Otero.  Cabrera was sentenced to life in prison.  His 
convictions and sentences were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1   
 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Cabrera claims that: a) following his arrest in the Otero 
case, and after exercising his right to remain silent, a detective with the 
Wilmington Police Department questioned him about the Rockford Park murder 
case and elicited an incriminating statement, thereby violating his constitutional 
rights; and b) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to impeach 
a prosecution witness and fully investigate his case to develop exculpatory alibi 
evidence. 
 
(4) 
The record reflects that the prosecutor did not seek to introduce the 
incriminating statement into evidence at trial in the Otero case.  The record further 
reflects that the Superior Court held a suppression hearing in the Rockford Park 
murder case with respect to the incriminating statement and that the statement was 
suppressed.  Because the statement was not admitted into evidence at either trial, 
there was no constitutional violation.  This claim is, therefore, without merit. 
                                                 
1 Cabrera v. State, 747 A.2d 543 (Del. 2000).  In an unrelated case known as the 
“Rockford Park” murder case, Cabrera was found guilty of two counts of Murder in the First 
Degree and related charges and was sentenced to death.  Those convictions and sentences also 
were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.  Cabrera v. State, 840 A.2d 1256 (Del. 2004). 
 
 
 
-3-
 
(5) 
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 
Cabrera must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective 
standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there 
is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been 
different.2  Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly 
demanding and leads to a “strong presumption that the representation was 
professionally reasonable.”3     
 
(6) 
While Cabrera argues that his trial counsel did not adequately cross 
examine a prosecution witness in order to impeach his credibility, our review of 
the record in this case does not support that argument.  While counsel did not 
question the witness about his background as a drug dealer, he did raise the issue 
of a “deal” between the witness and the police and did point out contradictions in 
his testimony to the jury.  Cabrera’s additional argument that his counsel failed to 
investigate an alibi defense is also without factual support.  While counsel tried to 
find the individual identified by Cabrera as an alibi witness, the witness could not 
be located.  Cabrera, thus, has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of his 
counsel that resulted in prejudice to him. 
 
                                                 
2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
3 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
 
 
-4-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice