IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

 )

v. ) ID# 1906003541 A&B

 )

JEFFREY CAMPBELL, )

 )

Defendant. )

Date Submitted: September 15, 2023

Date Decided: October 26, 2023

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief1

and Appointed Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel;2 Superior Court Criminal 

Rule 61; the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth in the Motions; statutory 

and decisional law; and the record in this case, it appears that:

1) On August 5, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment, charging

Defendant with: (1) Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child; (2) 

Sexual Solicitation of a Child; and (3) ten counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.

3

 

2) On January 22, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to Sex Offender Unlawful

Sexual Conduct Against a Child and three counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.4 

The plea offer also included Defendant’s violation of probation pending in Sussex 

1 D.I. 28. (Docket Item numbers are from ID No. 1906003541A.)

2 D.I. 35.

3 D.I. 2.

4 D.I. 16.
2

County for the offenses Sexual Exploitation of a Child and Attempted Sexual 

Solicitation.5

3) On July 9, 2021, the Court sentenced Defendant to 16 years of 

unsuspended Level V time.6

4) Mr. Campbell filed a timely direct appeal. On March 8, 2022, the 

Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence.7

5) On May 17, 2022, Defendant filed a timely pro se Motion for 

Postconviction Relief and Motion for Appointment of Counsel.8 On March 1, 2023, 

the Office of Conflicts Counsel confirmed that Kimberly A. Price and Patrick J. 

Collins, of Collins & Price, were appointed as counsel for Defendant (“Rule 61 

Counsel”).9

6) On August 1, 2023, Rule 61 Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw, a 

Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion, and an appendix pursuant to Rule 

61(e)(6).

10 Rule 61 Counsel informed the Court that, after a thorough review of the 

record, Defendant’s claims lacked merit and there were no additional meritorious 

5

 Id. The Court deferred sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence investigation 

(“PSI”). Id.

6

 D.I. 23. The delay in time between the plea and sentencing was due to the PSI and 

the fact that trial counsel, on behalf of Defendant, requested to schedule Defendant 

for sentencing in person rather than over videophone. (D.I. 19, D.I.20).

7 Campbell v. State, 2022 WL 678001 (Del. Mar. 8, 2022).

8 D.I. 28, D.I. 29.

9 D.I. 32.

10 D.I. 35.
3

claims.11 Rule 61 Counsel indicated that they transmitted a copy of the filing to 

Defendant and informed Defendant that Defendant had thirty days to file a 

response.12

7) As of this date, Defendant has not responded to Rule 61 Counsel’s 

Motion to Withdraw.

ANALYSIS

8) Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(6), postconviction 

counsel has an obligation to assist the movant in presenting any substantial ground 

for relief.13 If counsel identifies any substantial ground for relief, counsel can file 

an amended motion to include those grounds.

14

 Conversely, if counsel “considers 

the movant’s claim to be so lacking in merit that counsel cannot ethically advocate 

it, and counsel is not aware of any other substantial ground for relief available to the 

movant, counsel may move to withdraw.”15 If counsel moves to withdraw, they must 

explain the factual and legal basis for their opinion and provide notice to the movant, 

who may respond within thirty days of service, unless the court grants an extension 

of this deadline.

16

11 D.I. 35; Mot. Withdraw as Counsel.

12 Id. See also Letter to Judge Adams from Kimberly A. Price dated August 1, 2023.

13 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(6).

14 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(6).

15 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(7).

16 Id. 
4

9) Here, Rule 61 Counsel concluded that Defendant’s claims lacked 

sufficient merit to the point that they could not ethically advocate Defendant’s 

position, or any other possible claim.

17 On this basis, Rule 61 Counsel moved to 

withdraw.18

10) The deadline for Defendant to respond to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to 

Withdraw was September 15, 2023. As of the date of this order, Defendant has not 

responded to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw.

11) In the Motion to Withdraw, Rule 61 Counsel engaged in a detailed 

analysis of Defendant’s claims before concluding that they were devoid of merit.19

Rule 61 Counsel also considered wither there were any other meritorious claims for 

postconviction relief and could not find any. Defendant has elected to not contest 

Rule 61 Counsel’s position on his Motion for Postconviction Relief. Because 

Defendant has failed to timely respond to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw, 

Defendant is limited to presenting the claims he made in his pro se Motion for 

Postconviction Relief. The Court will not consider any additional claims Defendant 

made in his Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 17, 2022.

12) With respect to Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, Superior 

Court Criminal Rule 61(a) states such motions must be based on a sufficient factual 

17 Mot. Withdraw; D.I. 35.

18 Id.

19 See generally Mot. Withdraw.
5

or legal basis.

20 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(2) requires that postconviction 

motions “specify all grounds for relief which are available to the movant . . . and 

shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus 

specified.”21 “[F]or a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to prevail, the 

defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them 

or risk summary dismissal.”22 If the motion clearly shows that the movant is not 

entitled to relief, the court may summarily dismiss it.23 

13) After a review of the Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion to 

Withdraw, in addition to the applicable legal authorities, it is evident that 

Defendant’s grounds for relief do not have merit. Defendant claims defense counsel 

was ineffective for the for leaving his position with the Office of Defense Services 

and was not fully invested in his sentencing hearing.24 

14) The Court finds that this claim lacks merit. Mr. Campbell fails to 

provide any specifics as to how trial counsel’s performance was deficient at 

sentencing, or at any other time. He does not attempt to collaterally attack the guilty 

plea or the sentencing. Attorneys change positions frequently – just because an 

20 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a).

21 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(2).

22 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996).

23 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).

24 D.I. 28.
6

attorney leaves his or her current position does not mean their performance in the 

matter was ineffective.

15) Here, it is apparent that trial counsel secured a mitigation report on 

behalf of Mr. Campbell to present at sentencing. This report was also referenced in 

the pre-sentence investigation report. After reviewing the transcript of the 

sentencing hearing, the Court is satisfied that trial counsel was prepared and fully 

invested in Mr. Campbell’s sentencing.25 The Court, therefore, will enter an Order 

for its summary dismissal.26

NOW THEREFORE, Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and

Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY 

DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Meghan A. Adams 

Judge Meghan A. Adams

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Office of Conflicts Counsel 

Erik Towne, Deputy Attorney General

Kimberly A. Price, Esquire

Patrick J. Collins, Esquire

Kevin O’Connell, Esquire

Andrew J. Meyer, Esquire

Jeffrey Campbell, pro se

25 Appendix to Mot. Withdraw; D.I. 36 at A62-A70.

26 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).