Case Title: Neal v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 596, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAMION T. NEAL, 
 
 
Defendant Below, 
 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 596, 2013 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§ 
§  Cr. ID 0811005782 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 4, 2014 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 11, 2014 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The appellant, Damion Neal, appeals from the denial by the Superior 
Court of his first motion for postconviction relief.  We find no merit to the issues 
Neal raises on appeal and, accordingly, affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) Neal pled no contest1 on May 10, 2010 to one count of Murder in the 
First Degree and one count of Murder in the Second Degree (as a lesser included 
offense).  Neal had confessed to breaking into his former girlfriend’s home and 
                                                 
1 See Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279, 281 (Del. 1972) (holding that, under some circumstances, 
a defendant may be permitted to plead guilty without formally admitting guilt to the charges). 
2 
 
shooting her and her current boyfriend at close range as they lay in bed.  In 
exchange for his plea, Neal avoided a capital murder trial, and the State dismissed 
six other companion charges.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Neal to 
life imprisonment plus a term of thirty-five years at Level V incarceration.  Neal 
did not file a direct appeal.   
 
(3) Instead, on March 1, 2011, Neal filed a motion for postconviction relief.  
He asserted three claims:  (i) while housed in pretrial detention, he was denied 
access to a law library to conduct his own research to make sure his lawyers’ 
advice was sound; (ii) his attorneys coerced him into pleading guilty by focusing 
on the strength of the State’s evidence and in arranging for his family to visit him, 
even though he did not request a family visit; and (iii) his attorneys were 
ineffective for failing to provide him with copies of a mental health evaluation and 
for failing to inform him that the State was seeking a death sentence.  Within his 
ineffectiveness claim, Neal also implied that his attorneys were at fault for Neal 
deciding to change his mind about pursuing an extreme emotional distress defense.  
 
(4) Neal’s motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner, who 
directed Neal’s trial attorneys to file a response and affidavit.  In their response, 
counsel stated that Neal never claimed that he was denied access to the prison law 
library.  In fact, Neal was quite knowledgeable about cases and statutes relevant to 
the charges against him, which he cited in correspondence to the attorneys.  
3 
 
Counsel also denied having coerced Neal into accepting a guilty plea.  Counsel did 
arrange for Neal’s family to visit him in April to discuss a pre-trial plea offer made 
by the State, but Neal rejected that pre-trial plea offer.  Ultimately, Neal indicated 
his desire to enter a plea after the death-qualified jury had been selected.   
 
(5) Regarding Neal’s third claim, counsel stated that at the outset of his 
case they had advised Neal that he was facing capital murder charges and that Neal 
understood the charges and the possible death sentence he was facing.  Counsel 
also stated that they discussed at length with Neal both the defense expert’s 
psychiatric evaluation (which concluded that at the time of the killings Neal was 
operating under extreme emotional distress) and the state expert’s psychiatric 
evaluation (which concluded that Neal was not operating under extreme emotional 
distress).  Although counsel did not furnish Neal copies of the reports, Neal was 
well-informed of the contents of both.  Counsel also stated that Neal decided 
before trial that he did not want to argue extreme emotional distress as a mitigating 
factor and therefore did not want the defense expert to testify.  Instead, Neal 
wanted to argue a “reckless endangering” defense to the jury, by testifying that he 
intended only to shoot into the bed near the victims in order to scare them and 
never intended to shoot at them.2 
                                                 
2 The record reflects that five of Neal’s six shots hit the victims. 
4 
 
 
(6) After receiving the State’s response,3 the Commissioner filed a report 
and recommendation, concluding that Neal had entered his guilty plea knowingly, 
intelligently, and voluntarily and that he had not demonstrated cause or prejudice 
sufficient to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  The Superior Court 
adopted the Commissioner’s recommendation and denied Neal’s motion for 
postconviction relief.  This appeal followed. 
 
(7) Although Neal enumerates five issues in his opening brief on appeal, he 
raises only three distinct claims.4  First, he claims that he was deprived of his 
constitutional right to file a direct appeal.  Second, Neal contends that, because of 
his trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, 
intelligently, and voluntarily.  Specifically, Neal asserts that:  (i) his plea was 
coerced by counsel; (ii) his “mental deficiencies” and extreme emotional distress, 
which his counsel failed to argue, rendered him legally unable to enter a knowing, 
intelligent, and voluntary plea; and (iii) counsel should have known that the 
                                                 
3 The Commissioner also allowed Neal to amend his motion after briefing was completed.  
Neal’s amendment included a further allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel based on 
counsel’s failure to adhere to “norms” in pretrial discovery procedure in a capital case.  The 
Commissioner considered and rejected this allegation without requiring a supplemental response 
from either defense counsel or the State. 
4 Neal does not raise any argument concerning his lack of access to the prison law library.  By 
failing to raise this issue in his opening brief on appeal, that claim is waived.  See Murphy v. 
State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
5 
 
evidence did not support a charge of first degree murder.  Third, Neal argues that 
the Delaware statute defining “extreme emotional distress”5 is unconstitutional.  
 
(8) To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel after the entry of 
a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that:  (a) counsel’s conduct fell below 
an objective standard of reasonableness; and (b) there is a reasonable probability 
that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pled guilty but would 
have insisted on going to trial.6  A defendant must make concrete allegations of 
cause and actual prejudice to substantiate a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel.7  Neal essentially argues that his counsel was ineffective by coercing him 
into entering a plea, failing to give him copies of the psychological reports, and 
failing to adequately investigate and craft a defense.   
(9) In their response to Neal’s allegations of ineffectiveness, his trial 
attorneys denied coercing him to take a plea.  Neal had confessed to shooting both 
victims, and was facing a death sentence.  Although Neal did not receive physical 
copies of the psychological reports, counsel had discussed the reports at length and 
Neal was well aware of their contents.  Counsel stated that it was Neal’s decision 
to forego pursuing a theory of extreme emotional distress because he wanted to 
                                                 
5 11 Del. C., § 641. 
6 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59 (1985). 
7 See Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
6 
 
present an argument that he was trying only to scare the victims by shooting into 
the bed.  Once the death-qualified jury was selected, however, Neal changed his 
mind about wanting to defend against the charges and decided to take the plea.   
(10) The record supports the Superior Court’s conclusion that counsel’s 
performance was well within the standards of reasonableness.  Indeed, Neal stated 
under oath at his plea colloquy that he was satisfied with his counsel’s 
representation.  He indicated that he fully understood both the charges against him 
and the consequences of pleading guilty.  Neal stated that he was pleading guilty 
because he was satisfied that the State had sufficient evidence to prove him guilty 
of the charged offenses.  He further stated, among other things, that no one had 
threatened him or coerced him into pleading guilty.  Absent clear and convincing 
evidence to the contrary, Neal is bound by those statements.8  We therefore reject 
Neal’s claims that his guilty plea was involuntary due to his counsel’s coercion 
and/or ineffective assistance.   
(11) Neal’s two remaining arguments—that he was denied his right to file a 
direct appeal and that the extreme emotional distress statute is unconstitutional—
were not raised before the Superior Court in the first instance.  Accordingly, we 
will not review these claims absent a showing of plain error.9  Plain error exists 
                                                 
8 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
9 Knox v. State, 29 A.3d 217, 222-23 (Del. 2011). 
7 
 
when the error constitutes a material defect that is apparent on the face of the 
record and is so clearly prejudicial to a defendant’s substantial rights that it 
jeopardizes the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.10  We find no error, plain 
or otherwise, with respect to either claim.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
                                                 
10 Id.