Case Title: Walls v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 172, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BENJAMIN F. WALLS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 172, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0303007019 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 20, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 20th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm and motion to expand the record, 
and the appellant’s motion to compel, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Benjamin Walls, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his fourth motion for postconviction relief.  The 
State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Walls’ opening brief that the appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Walls was convicted by a Superior 
Court jury in September 2003 of first degree assault, possession of a firearm 
 
2 
during the commission of a felony and several related offenses.  The 
indictment stemmed from a hunting accident during which Walls, while 
firing his rifle at a deer, shot a passing motorist on Route 113.  His 
convictions were affirmed on appeal.1 Between 2004 and 2006, Walls filed 
three unsuccessful postconviction motions. In 2007, Walls filed a motion 
asking the Superior Court to hold a hearing to consider “new evidence.”  
The “new evidence” Walls alleged was that the ballistics expert who 
testified for the State at his trial did not have the educational background that 
he claimed and that his opinion at trial, therefore, was not truthful.  The 
Superior Court treated Walls’ motion as a motion for a new trial and denied 
it on the ground that the evidence could have been discovered before trial.  
We affirmed that ruling on appeal.2 
(3) 
In October 2008, the State, in response to inquiries made by the 
Public Defender’s office, filed a motion requesting release of the firearm and 
ballistic evidence in Walls’ case in order to permit examination and testing 
by a designated defense expert.  The Superior Court granted that motion on 
October 22, 2008.  On October 29, 2008, Walls, acting pro se, filed his 
                                                 
1 Walls v. State, 850 A.2d 287 (Del. 2004). 
2 Walls v. State, 2008 WL 1778243 (Del. Apr. 21, 2008). 
 
3 
fourth motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court denied.  
This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Walls contends that his trial 
counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the credentials of the State’s 
ballistic expert.  In response, the State has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment denying Walls’ motion as procedurally barred.  The State 
also has filed a motion to expand the record to include the results of recent 
testing done on the weapon and ballistic evidence used at Walls’ trial, which 
supports the conclusion of the trial expert.  Walls objects to expanding the 
record on appeal on the ground that the State has failed to authenticate the 
evidence.  Walls also has filed a motion to compel the State to provide him 
with documentation authenticating the evidence.  We find it unnecessary to 
address the State’s motion to expand the record and Walls’ motion to 
compel because, for the reason set forth below, we find it manifest on the 
face of Walls’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit. 
(5) 
This 
Court 
reviews 
the 
Superior 
Court’s 
denial 
of 
postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.3  The Court first must consider 
the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before addressing any substantive 
                                                 
3 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 
 
4 
issues.4  In this case, the Superior Court concluded that Walls’ fourth 
postconviction motion was untimely under Rule 61(i)(1) and also repetitive 
under Rule 61(i)(2) because the allegation regarding the expert’s credentials 
could have been raised in a prior postconviction proceeding.  We agree.   
(6) 
Moreover, to the extent Walls argues that his ineffective 
assistance of counsel claim should be considered in the interests of justice, 
we note that, to prevail on such a claim, the defendant must establish that (i) 
his trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of 
reasonableness; and (ii) but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome 
of the proceedings would have been different.5  In this case, even if we 
assume attorney error, Walls has made no attempt to show that, but for the 
alleged error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.  
Despite the Superior Court’s release of the evidence for re-testing by a 
defense expert, Walls offered nothing in support of his postconviction 
motion to show that the State’s expert at trial had offered an incorrect 
opinion on the ballistic evidence such that the outcome of Walls’ trial would 
have been different.  Accordingly, in the absence of actual prejudice, we find 
                                                 
4Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). 
 
5 
no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying his fourth motion for 
postconviction relief.6 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990).