Case Title: Garden v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 45, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SADIKI GARDEN, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 45, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9912015068 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 10, 2009 
Decided:  September 4, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Sadiki Garden, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  We 
conclude that the record before us is insufficient to conduct an adequate 
review of the merits of Garden’s appeal.  Accordingly, we remand this 
matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings.  Jurisdiction will be not 
be retained. 
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Garden, 
among other things, of first degree intentional murder and first degree felony 
 
2
murder.  After a penalty hearing, the jury found the existence of a statutory 
aggravating circumstance but voted 10-2 in favor of a life sentence on the 
intentional murder count and voted 9-3 in favor of a life sentence on the 
felony murder count.  The Superior Court judge imposed a death sentence 
for each of the two murder convictions.1  
(3) 
After a post-trial hearing, Garden’s motions for a new trial and 
for recusal of the trial judge were both denied.  On appeal, this Court 
affirmed Garden’s convictions but remanded the case for reconsideration of 
the sentence on the murder convictions.2  On remand, the trial judge re-
imposed the death sentences.3  On appeal, this Court reversed the death 
sentences and directed the Superior Court to impose a life sentence.4  After 
the Superior Court resentenced Garden to life in prison without the 
possibility of probation or parole, Garden filed motions requesting the 
preparation of transcript and the appointment of counsel to assist him in 
pursuing a petition for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 61.  The Superior Court denied both motions.  Nearly two years later, 
on December 18, 2006, Garden filed his first motion for postconviction 
                                                 
1 State v. Garden, 792 A.2d 1025 (Del. Super. 2001). 
2 Garden v. State, 815 A.2d 327 (Del. 2003). 
3 State v. Garden, 831 A.2d 352 (Del. Super. 2003). 
4 Garden v. State, 844 A.2d 311 (Del. 2004). 
 
3
relief pro se.  After receiving a response from the State in April 2007, the 
Superior Court denied Garden’s motion on January 15, 2009.  This appeal 
followed. 
(4) 
Garden raises six issues in his opening brief on appeal.  First, 
he contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion in ruling on his 
postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without first 
obtaining a response to the allegations from his former counsel.  Second, 
Garden asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to 
allegedly biased comments made by the trial judge or to raise the issue of 
judicial bias concerning these remarks on direct appeal.  Third, Garden 
asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a pretrial 
motion to suppress.  Fourth, Garden argues that his trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to properly impeach his codefendant, Christopher 
Johnson, on cross-examination concerning Johnson’s allegedly false and 
contradictory testimony.  Fifth, Garden contends that trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to argue a violation of Garden’s constitutional rights 
under Miranda v. Arizona.5  Finally, Garden asserts that his trial counsel was 
ineffective for prohibiting Garden from testifying in his own defense. 
                                                 
5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 
 
4
(5) 
In its answering brief on appeal, the State, among other things, 
contends that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by failing to 
obtain defense counsel’s response to Garden’s allegations of ineffectiveness 
because there is no merit to his allegations.   
(6) 
While ultimately the Court may find no merit on appeal to 
Garden’s allegations of ineffectiveness, we nonetheless conclude that the 
interests of justice require a fuller expansion of the record.  As this Court 
previously has noted, “a defendant's first and best opportunity to raise an 
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is in a timely motion for 
postconviction relief.”6  If the substance of any arguable claim is not fully 
considered in this first postconviction proceeding, Garden may be 
procedurally barred from ever raising the issues again.7   
(7) 
Under these circumstances and in the interests of justice, we 
therefore remand to the Superior Court so that Garden, with the assistance of 
appointed counsel, may have the opportunity to expand on the allegations 
raised in this appeal and so defense counsel, as well as the State, may have 
the opportunity to address Garden’s allegations.   
                                                 
6 Horne v. State, 887 A.2d 973, 974 (Del. 2005). 
7 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2). 
 
5
(8) 
We have no doubt that the trial judge could reconsider this 
matter fairly and impartially.  Given the nature of Garden’s arguments, the 
need for appointed counsel to review the earlier proceedings, and the 
impending expiration of the trial judge’s term, we conclude, in the interests 
of justice, that this matter should be assigned to a different Superior Court 
judge for reconsideration of Garden’s postconviction motion.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s 
opinion, dated January 15, 2009, is hereby VACATED.  This matter is 
REMANDED to the Superior Court for reassignment by the President Judge 
and the appointment of counsel to represent Garden in pursuing a new 
postconviction motion.  After receiving responses from former defense 
counsel and the State, the Superior Court may hold a hearing, in its 
discretion.  Priority should be given to scheduling this case upon remand.  
Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice