Case Title: Pinkston v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 651, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JESUS PINKSTON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 651, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1004018182 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 3, 2014 
  Decided: April 22, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of April 2014, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jesus Pinkston, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  
Pinkston’s counsel on appeal has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Pinkston filed a response to his attorney’s presentation 
raising five points for the Court’s consideration on appeal.  The State has 
2 
 
responded to Pinkston’s points, as well as to the position taken by Pinkston’s 
counsel, and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.  We find 
no merit to Pinkston’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on April 21, 2010, Pinkston was 
driving in Wilmington with a revoked license.1  Pinkston knew that the 
vehicle he was driving had been reported stolen by the owner; therefore, he 
had altered the vehicle’s license plate.  Believing that he was being followed 
by a police officer, Pinkston began speeding and driving erratically in an 
effort to evade the officer.  In the course of the ensuing chase, Pinkston 
struck three separate vehicles.  Ultimately, he lost control of the car and 
killed a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk.  Pinkston fled the scene.  He 
was arrested on May 3, 2010 in Maryland.  
 
(3) 
Pinkston was indicted on the following charges: Murder in the 
Second Degree, Leaving the Scene of a Collision Resulting in Death, 
Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, Reckless Driving, Disregarding a 
Red Light, Failure to Drive at a Speed Appropriate for Conditions, two 
counts of Leaving the Scene of a Collision Resulting in Property Damage or 
                                                 
1 In fact, Pinkston previously had been declared a habitual driving offender.  At the time 
of the crime in question, Pinkston was serving probation for a 2009 conviction for 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree and Unauthorized Use of a Credit Card.  As part of that 
sentence, Pinkston had been ordered not to possess a car key or even sit in the driver’s 
seat of a vehicle unless he was licensed and insured. 
3 
 
Injury, Driving into Oncoming Traffic on Divided Highways, Aggressive 
Driving, Receiving Stolen Property, Forgery in the Second Degree, Driving 
After Judgment Prohibited, Driving While License is Suspended or 
Revoked, and No Proof of Insurance. 
 
(4) 
In May 2011, Pinkston pled guilty to Manslaughter (as a lesser 
included offense to Murder in the Second Degree), Leaving the Scene of a 
Collision Resulting in Death, and Reckless Endangering in the First Degree.  
The State dismissed the remaining charges.  In his plea colloquy, Pinkston 
acknowledged that he faced a sentence that could range from three years to 
thirty-five years in prison.  He stated that he was “very” satisfied with his 
counsel’s representation and that he was pleading guilty because he was, in 
fact, guilty of the charges.  The Superior Court ordered a presentence 
investigation.  On July 29, 2011, the Superior Court sentenced Pinkston on 
all three charges to a total period of thirty-two years at Level V incarceration 
to be suspended after serving twenty-five years in prison for decreasing 
levels of supervision. 
 
(5) 
Pinkston did not file a direct appeal to this Court.  Instead, in 
October 2011, Pinkston, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion for 
sentence modification. The gist of defense counsel’s motion was that the 
sentencing court had not given sufficient consideration to Pinkston’s 
4 
 
mitigating evidence, which consisted of a psychological evaluation that 
Pinkston had undergone in preparation for trial.  Defense counsel argued, 
among other things, that the twenty-five year sentence imposed for 
Pinkston’s Manslaughter conviction was so excessive compared to the 
presumptive SENTAC guideline of two to five years and compared to 
sentences imposed upon other defendants under similar circumstances.  
Counsel also argued that Pinkston’s sentence was disproportionate in light of 
the expert’s psychological report.  The Superior Court denied Pinkston’s 
motion on December 9, 2011.  Pinkston did not appeal. 
 
(6) 
Instead, Pinkston filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief 
on July 11, 2012.  The Superior Court appointed counsel to represent 
Pinkston.  Counsel filed an amended motion for postconviction relief on 
January 11, 2013.  The motion alleged that: (i) the trial court failed to 
adequately advise him of his rights during the plea colloquy; (ii) counsel 
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a direct appeal or 
otherwise advising Pinkston of his appeal rights; (iii) trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to allow Pinkston to read a copy of the expert 
psychological report before Pinkston pled guilty; and (iv) the sentencing 
judge failed to give appropriate deference to the plea agreement and was 
impermissibly biased in favor of the victim. 
5 
 
 
(7) 
The motion was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner.  
The Commissioner expanded the record by obtaining responses from 
Pinkston’s trial counsel and the State.  After considering all of Pinkston’s 
claims, the Commissioner issued a twenty-three page report recommending 
that postconviction relief be denied.  On November 8, 2013, the Superior 
Court approved the Commissioner’s report and denied Pinkston’s motion.  
This appeal followed. 
 
(8) 
Counsel has filed a no-merit brief under Rule 26(c) and has 
moved to withdraw on the ground that there are no arguable issues for 
appeal.  In response to his counsel’s Rule 26(c) brief, Pinkston has raised 
five points for the Court’s consideration.2  First, he contends that his trial 
counsel was ineffective for failing to give him a copy of the psychological 
evaluation.  Second, Pinkston contends that his sentence is disproportionate.  
Third, he contends that the Superior Court erred in failing to find that his 
trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a direct appeal.  Fourth, he asserts 
that the trial judge was biased against him.  Finally, he contends that the trial 
                                                 
2 Pinkston’s response attempts to incorporate by reference any legal ground for review 
previously argued to the Superior Court since January 2012.  The attempt to incorporate 
an argument by reference, however, is insufficient to preserve and present an argument 
for this Court’s review.  Ploof v. State, 75 A.2d 811, 822-23 (Del. 2013).  We consider 
only those five claims that Pinkston has properly raised to the Court.  See Murphy v. 
State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
6 
 
judge did not give sufficient weight to mitigating evidence in sentencing 
him. 
(9) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.3 
(10) In considering Pinkston’s claims of error, this Court reviews the 
Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion.4  The 
Court first must consider the procedural requirements of Rule 61 before 
addressing any substantive issues.5  Rule 61(i)(3) provides that any ground 
for relief that was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of 
conviction is thereafter barred unless the petitioner can establish: (i) cause 
for his failure to raise the claim earlier; and (ii) prejudice.  Moreover, Rule 
61(i)(4) bars litigation of any claim that previously was adjudicated unless 
                                                 
3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
4 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 
5Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 
7 
 
reconsideration of the claim is warranted in the interest of justice.   
(11) In this case, two of Pinkston’s claims—that the trial judge did 
not give sufficient weight to his mitigating evidence and that his sentence 
was disproportionate—were previously raised and rejected by the Superior 
Court when it denied Pinkston’s motion for modification of sentence.  The 
sentencing transcript reflects that the trial judge specifically considered 
Pinkston’s significant mental health problems and his extraordinarily 
difficult childhood in crafting an appropriate sentence.6  Under the 
circumstances, even if Pinkston’s sentencing claims were reviewable in this 
Rule 61 proceeding,7 we do not find that reconsideration of Pinkston’s 
previously adjudicated claims is warranted in the interest of justice. 
Accordingly, we reject these two arguments on appeal. 
(12) Pinkston next contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for 
failing to give him a copy of the expert’s psychological report prior to the 
entry of his guilty plea.  To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim, a defendant must satisfy the familiar Strickland test.  That is, “[a] 
defendant must first show that that his counsel's representation fell below an 
                                                 
6 Pinkston concedes that his sentence falls within the statutory range of authorized 
sentences for his crimes. 
7 See Wilson v. State, 2006 WL 1291369 (Del. May 9, 2006) (holding that Rule 61 
“provides a procedure for a criminal defendant to set aside a conviction or a capital 
sentence” and that Rule 35 sets forth the procedure to challenge a non-capital sentence). 
8 
 
objective standard of reasonableness.  Second, the defendant must show that 
the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”8  In the context of a 
guilty plea, to establish prejudice the defendant must demonstrate a 
reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, the 
defendant would not have pled guilty but would have insisted on going to 
trial.9   
 
(13) In this case, trial counsel stated in his affidavit that he discussed 
the contents of the expert’s report with Pinkston but purposefully did not 
allow Pinkston to read a copy of it.  Counsel told Pinkston that the report did 
not provide any actual legal defense to the charges but was helpful because it 
highlighted Pinkston’s difficult upbringing and his struggle with mental 
health issues.  Counsel told Pinkston that he would not give him a copy of 
the report because he wanted Pinkston to focus on expressing remorse for 
his actions.  Counsel was concerned that Pinkston might rely on the report to 
try to excuse his criminal behavior.  According to counsel, Pinkston 
understood and did not object to counsel’s strategic decision to not give him 
the report. 
                                                 
8 Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 941-42 (Del. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). 
9 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997).  
9 
 
 
(14) The Commissioner concluded that counsel’s tactical decision 
was reasonable under the circumstances and did not constitute error.  We 
agree with that assessment.  Moreover, Pinkston cannot establish any 
prejudice from counsel’s failure to give him a copy of the report.  Pinkston 
contends that, if he had seen the report prior to accepting the State’s plea 
offer to Manslaughter, he would have directed his counsel to negotiate a 
better plea offer, or else he would have proceeded to trial on the charge of 
Murder in the Second Degree and used the psychological report to argue in 
favor of a lesser included offense such as Manslaughter or Vehicular 
Homicide.  Given that Pinkston actually pled guilty to the lesser included 
offense of Manslaughter, his contention that he would have chosen to go to 
trial and argue for a Manslaughter conviction simply makes no sense.   
Consequently, we find no merit to Pinkston’s claim of ineffective assistance 
of counsel because there is neither attorney error nor prejudice. 
 
(15) Pinkston next contends that the Superior Court erred in failing 
to find that his trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a direct appeal.  
We disagree.  A review of the record reflects that Pinkston entered his guilty 
plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.  Indeed, Pinkston does not 
even argue in this appeal that his guilty plea was defective in any way.  
Accordingly, the only arguable claim that counsel could have raised on 
10 
 
direct appeal would have been a challenge to Pinkston’s sentence.  Our 
review of sentences on direct appeal, however, is limited.10  As we already 
noted, Pinkston’s sentence was within statutory limits.  Moreover, the 
Superior Court considered all relevant evidence, including Pinkston’s 
mitigating evidence, when it crafted its sentence.  The outcome of a direct 
appeal would have yielded no different result than the motion for 
modification of sentence that counsel did pursue.  Under the circumstances, 
we find no cause or prejudice from counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal. 
 
(16) Pinkston’s final claim is that the Superior Court judge was 
biased against him in denying his postconviction motion.  Pinkston does not 
allege any specific grounds to support his claim of bias.  He simply claims 
that the judge was biased because she denied his motion.  We find no abuse 
of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying Pinkston’s motion.  The denial 
of his motion reflects no evidence of bias.11  We reject this claim.  
(17) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Pinkston’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Pinkston’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
10 Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 416 (Del. 2010). 
11 Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991) (holding that a claim of judicial bias must 
stem from an extrajudicial source). 
11 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Pinkston could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice