Case Title: Murphy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 228, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JIMMY LEE MURPHY,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 228, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK95-09-0365- 
§                               0366
§
Submitted: October 26, 2001
  Decided:   December 10, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 10th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Jimmy Lee Murphy, filed this appeal
from the April 24, 2001 order of the Superior Court 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 this appeal, Murphy claims that the Superior Court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for postconviction relief because his ability
to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was prejudiced by the
1Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993).  In his motion for
postconviction relief, Murphy also argued that: a) the State failed to properly establish the
chain of custody; b) his counsel was ineffective; and c) the trial court committed error.
211 Del. C. § 4214(b).
3Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1996, Hartnett, J., 1997 WL 328603 (May
30, 1997) (ORDER).
410 Del. C. § 512(b).
-2-
loss of his file by the Office of the Public Defender.  To the extent Murphy
has not argued other grounds to support his appeal that were previously raised,
those grounds are deemed waived and will not be addressed by this Court.1
(3)
In May 1996, Murphy was found guilty by a Superior Court jury
of Delivery of Cocaine and Maintaining a Dwelling for the Keeping of
Controlled Substances.  He was sentenced as an habitual offender2 to life in
prison.  This Court affirmed Murphy’s convictions and sentences on direct
appeal.3  
(4)
In March 1999, Murphy filed a motion for postconviction relief,
which the Superior Court referred to a Commissioner for proposed findings
and a recommendation.4  After ordering a briefing schedule, the
Commissioner was notified that Murphy’s public defender had retired and was
medically incapacitated and, moreover, that the Office of the Public Defender
was unable to locate its file relating to Murphy’s case.  Murphy then filed a
5Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g) (2).
6Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h) (1) and (3).
-3-
modified motion for postconviction relief claiming he was entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on the ground that his ability to present his claim of
ineffective assistance had been prejudiced by the absence of the file and his
counsel’s inability to respond to his claim.5  The Commissioner reviewed the
original trial transcript as the best evidence of Murphy’s counsel’s
performance and, on that basis, found that Murphy had not been prejudiced
by his counsel’s inability to respond, an evidentiary hearing was not
necessary6 and Murphy’s claim of ineffective assistance was meritless.  The
Superior Court adopted the findings of the Commissioner in its April 24, 2001
order denying Murphy’s motion for postconviction relief. 
(5)
Murphy’s claim is without merit.  We have carefully reviewed
the record in this case and there is no evidence of error or abuse of discretion
either on the part of the Commissioner or on the part of the Superior Court
judge.  The Commissioner properly relied on the trial transcript to review
Murphy’s claim of ineffective assistance and properly exercised her discretion
in determining that Murphy had not been prejudiced by his counsel’s inability
to respond and that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to decide
710 Del. C. § 512(b).
8Murphy’s motion to strike the appellee’s brief is denied.  Supr. Ct. R. 34.
-4-
Murphy’s claims.  There is also no evidence of any error or abuse of
discretion on the part of the Superior Court judge in adopting the findings of
the Commissioner and her recommendation to deny Murphy’s motion for
postconviction relief.7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.8
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice