Title: Ortiz v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLOS ORTIZ, JR., 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 205, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0208005710 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 24, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 20, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of December 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Carlos Ortiz, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that 
it is manifest on the face of Ortiz’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
 
-2-
(2) 
The record reflects that a Superior Court jury convicted Ortiz in 
2003 of two counts of first degree rape, possession of a deadly weapon, and 
numerous related offenses resulting from Ortiz’s attack on his estranged 
wife in her home while the couple’s three children were present.  The 
Superior Court sentenced him to 84 years at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving 68 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1  Ortiz filed 
his first motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court in November 
2005.  Ortiz raised four issues in the original motion:  (i) his trial counsel 
was ineffective; (ii) the trial court improperly admitted statements made by 
his children to the investigating officer; (iii) the trial court improperly 
commented on the evidence; and (iv) the prosecution failed to disclose 
exculpatory evidence.  The Superior Court denied all of Johnson’s claims.  
This appeal followed. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Ortiz again argues that his trial 
counsel was ineffective, the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his 
children’s statements to police, and the prosecution failed to disclose 
exculpatory evidence.  We will not consider any other issues raised below 
                                                 
1 Ortiz v. State, 2004 WL 77860 (Del. Jan. 15, 2004). 
 
 
-3-
that were not briefed on appeal, including several claims of ineffectiveness 
that were argued to the Superior Court but not briefed here.2 
(4) 
The only claim of ineffectiveness raised in Ortiz’s opening brief 
is a claim that his counsel failed to communicate with him before trial 
regarding statements made by his sons to an investigator from the Division 
of Family Services (DFS). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, a petitioner is required to establish: (a) that defense counsel’s 
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (b) 
that but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability 
that the outcome of the case would have been different.3 There is a strong 
presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable.4   
(5) 
In this case, the Superior Court noted that DFS had conducted 
two child neglect investigations of the Ortiz family.  The first investigation 
took place before Ortiz attacked his wife.  The second investigation was 
prompted by a hot-line telephone call reporting that Ortiz had broken into 
his wife’s home and raped her while the children were present.  The 
Superior Court noted that neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel was 
                                                 
2 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997) (holding that claims not 
briefed on appeal are deemed waived). 
3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). 
4 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 
 
 
-4-
aware of the DFS neglect investigations until trial was underway when the 
investigating detective made reference to them on the witness stand.  The 
Superior Court then stopped the trial and ordered the State to obtain copies 
of the DFS records and produce them to defense counsel.  The trial court 
also ordered the State to make the DFS investigator available as a witness 
for defense counsel’s examination. 
(6) 
As ordered, the DFS investigator appeared at trial the next day.  
Defense counsel cross-examined her and elicited testimony regarding 
statements made by Ortiz’s sons reflecting that Ortiz did not have a gun 
during the attack.  These statements were consistent with statements made 
by one of the boys in a letter that had been provided to defense counsel long 
before trial.  In fact, defense counsel was able to use the statements in the 
son’s letter to challenge his credibility during cross-examination.  Under 
these circumstances, even if we assume that counsel had erred in failing to 
discover the DFS investigations before trial, we find no resulting prejudice 
because the statements to the investigator did not include any information 
that was unknown to defense counsel and, thus, did not affect the outcome of 
the trial.5 
                                                 
5 See Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996). 
 
 
-5-
(7) 
Ortiz’s next claim is that the trial court erred in admitting into 
evidence statements his children made to the investigating detective.  Ortiz 
raised this issue on direct appeal, however, and this Court rejected it.6  The 
Superior Court properly concluded that this previously-adjudicated claim 
was procedurally barred and that Ortiz had not established that 
reconsideration of the claim was warranted in the interest of justice.7 
(8) 
Ortiz’s final claim is that the prosecutor withheld exculpatory 
evidence by failing to provide the DFS interviews until after trial began.  
Although disclosure of the reports was late, the Superior Court concluded 
that the prosecutor had been unaware of the reports before trial.  Once the 
existence of the reports was known, the trial court delayed continuation of 
the trial until defense counsel had an opportunity to review the reports and 
then was given the opportunity to question the DFS investigator about them.  
As we have held, the delayed disclosure of these reports did not result in any 
prejudice to Ortiz.8  Accordingly, this claim fails. 
 
 
                                                 
6 Ortiz v. State, 2004 WL 77860 (Del. Jan. 15, 2004). 
7 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (2007). 
8 See Lilly v. State, 649 A.2d 1055, 1058 (Del. 1994). 
 
 
-6-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
       Justice