Case Title: Drummond v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 200, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALVIN L. DRUMMOND,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 200, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0111006853 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2005 
                                         Decided:    October 18, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of October 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Alvin L. Drummond, appeals from the 
Superior Court’s April 21, 2005 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief.1  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm 
the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court judge adopted the findings of fact and recommendations of the 
Commissioner.  Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62. 
 
2
face of Drummond’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We 
agree and affirm.   
 
(2) 
In July 2002, Drummond was found guilty by a Superior Court 
jury of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, thirteen counts of Possession 
of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, eight counts of Robbery in 
the First Degree, two counts of Kidnapping in the Second Degree, Burglary 
in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm By a Person Prohibited, four 
counts of Aggravated Menacing, Wearing a Disguise During the 
Commission of a Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to life in prison plus 98 years.  This Court affirmed Drummond’s 
convictions and sentences on direct appeal.3   
 
(3) 
On this second appeal, Drummond claims that: a) the 
prosecutor knowingly introduced and relied upon false evidence regarding 
the time the crime was committed, thereby undermining his alibi defense; 
and b) his counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to the 
prosecutor’s closing argument, wherein the prosecutor misrepresented the 
time that the crime was committed.  To the extent Drummond has not argued 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Drummond v. State, Del. Supr., No. 532, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (Oct. 2, 2003). 
 
3
other grounds that previously were raised, those grounds are deemed waived 
and will not be addressed by this Court.4   
 
(4) 
Drummond’s first claim is procedurally barred as formerly 
adjudicated, because this Court disposed of this claim on Drummond’s direct 
appeal.5   Moreover, there is no basis for excusing the procedural default, as 
there is no evidence either that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to 
adjudicate Drummond’s criminal case or that there occurred a constitutional 
violation that undermined the fundamental legality, reliability, integrity or 
fairness of the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction.6     
 
(5) 
Drummond’s second claim is that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing 
argument wherein the prosecutor misrepresented the time that the crime was 
committed.  On direct appeal, this Court rejected Drummond’s claim that the 
prosecutor had misrepresented the evidence in his closing argument.  As 
such, Drummond’s present claim, which repeats the claim previously 
adjudicated against him, must fail.  Moreover, our review of the record does 
not reveal that any alleged error by Drummond’s counsel resulted in any 
                                                 
4 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).  In his motion for postconviction 
relief filed in the Superior Court, Drummond presented numerous other arguments in 
support of his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.   
5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
 
4
prejudice to him and we, therefore, find his claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel to be without merit.  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Drummond’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice        
 
 
                                                 
7 We also hereby deny as moot Drummond’s two motions to remand this matter to the 
Superior Court for the purpose of filing a motion for a new trial.