Title: Dupree v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DURELL T. DUPREE,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 205, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0209007645 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 10, 2013 
Decided:  June 28, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of June 2013, 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, Durell T. Dupree, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s February 7, 2013 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that this appeal is without merit.1  We agree 
and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in July 2003, Dupree was 
found guilty by a Superior Court jury of one count of Attempted Robbery in 
the First Degree, two counts of Assault in the First Degree, three counts of 
Assault in the Second Degree, five counts of Possession of a Firearm During 
the Commission of a Felony and four counts of Attempted Aggravated 
Menacing.  The Superior Court found Dupree guilty of one count of 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited.  He was sentenced 
to a total of fifteen years at Level V.  Dupree’s convictions were affirmed by 
this Court on direct appeal.2   
 
(3) 
In 2011 and 2012, Dupree filed a series of motions for sentence 
modification, all of which were unsuccessful.  On October 5, 2012, Dupree 
filed his first motion for postconviction relief.  The Superior Court denied 
Dupree’s motion as untimely pursuant to Rule 61(i) (1).  This appeal 
followed. 
 
(4) 
In his appeal, Dupree claims that a) he was deprived of a fair 
trial because the prosecutor improperly stated in his opening statement that 
Dupree was the shooter whereas he had been charged as an accomplice; b) 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Dupree v. State, 2004 WL 2154288 (Del. Sept. 23, 2004). 
 
3
the State violated his right to confront his accuser when it failed to call one 
of the victims as a witness; and c) his counsel provided ineffective assistance 
by failing to move to dismiss the charges against him based on the State’s 
improper conduct. 
 
(5) 
The mandate in this case was issued in October 2004.  
Therefore, Dupree had until October 2007 to file his motion for 
postconviction relief.3  Dupree’s motion was not filed until October 2012.  
Under Rule 61(i) (1), an untimely motion may be considered where the 
movant asserts a retroactively applicable right that has been newly-
recognized.  Because none of Dupree’s claims of improper conduct on the 
part of the State is premised on any such right, they are time-barred and the 
Superior Court properly so found. 
 
(6) 
Dupree’s attempt to avoid the time bar by asserting a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 61(i) (5) is unavailing because 
his underlying claims of improper conduct on the part of the State are 
meritless.  As for Dupree’s first claim, this Court has held that a defendant 
was not deprived of a fair trial based upon improper comments by the 
prosecutor where the case was not close, the comment did not go to a central 
                                                 
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (1).  The rule has since been amended to shorten the time 
period from three years to one year. 
 
4
element of the case and the judge took steps to mitigate the error.4  In this 
case, it was clear from the beginning of the trial until its conclusion that 
Dupree had been charged, and was being tried, as an accomplice, not a 
principal.  Moreover, the judge instructed the jury that remarks made by the 
prosecutor in his opening statement were not evidence.  As such, the record 
does not support Dupree’s claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair 
trial.   
 
(7) 
As for Dupree’s second claim, the confrontation clause only 
guarantees a defendant the right to cross-examine an adverse witness at trial, 
but does not require the State to call any particular individual to testify as a 
witness.5  Because the State did not need to, and therefore did not, call the 
victim to testify in order to prove its case against Dupree, there was no 
violation of Dupree’s right to confront his accuser.   
 
(8) 
Moreover, in the absence of any merit to Dupree’s underlying 
claims of improper conduct on the part of the State, his derivative claim of 
ineffective assistance on the part of his counsel for not moving to dismiss the 
                                                 
4 Hughes v. State, 437 A.2d 559, 571 (Del. 1981). 
5 Gordon v. State, 1990 WL 168256 (Del. 1990) (citing Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 
15, 22 (1985)). 
 
5
charges against him on the ground of the State’s allegedly improper conduct 
also must fail6 and the Superior Court properly so found. 
 
(9) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this 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, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
6 Monroe v. State, 2009 WL 189158 (Del. 2009) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 
U.S. 668, 687 (1984), holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires the 
defendant to demonstrate that his counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of 
reasonableness and was prejudicial to the outcome of the proceedings).