IN THE SUPR EM E C OUR T OF THE STATE OF DELAW AR E

M ONIR GEOR G E, § § No. 285, 2014
De fe nda nt B e low- § Appe lla nt, § C o urt B e low: Supe rior C ourt § of the Sta te of De l a wa re in a nd

v. § for Ne w C a s tle C ounty §
STATE OF DELAW

AR E, § No. 0805035299

§
Pla intiff B e low- § Appe lle e

. §

Subm itte d: Ja

nua ry 14, 2015
De c ide d: M a rc h

6, 2015

B e fore ST RINE , C hie f Justic e , H O L L AND

, a nd V AUG H N , Justic e s.

O R D E R

On this 6 t h d a

y of M a rc h 2015, it a

ppe a rs to the C ourt tha

t:

(1) De fe nda

nt-be low/Appe l la

nt M onir Ge orge (“ Ge orge ” ) a ppe a ls from a

Supe r i o r C ourt Orde r d e ny ing his a m e nde d R ule 61 m otion for postc onvic tion

re lie f. G e o rge wa s found guilty but m e nta l ly ill of M urde r i n t h e F i r st De gre e ,

A t t e m p te d M urde r in the First De gre e , R e c k le s s Enda nge ring in the First D eg r ee ,

a nd th r ee co unts of Posse ssion of a Fire a rm D uring the C om m ission of a Fe lony

(“ PFDC F” ). On d i re c t a ppe a l, we a ffirm e d Ge orge ’ s c o nvic tions. I n t h i s a ppe a l,

Ge orge ra ise s thre e c la im s. First, Ge orge c onte n ds tha t the tria l co u r t er r ed b y not

f i n ding tha t his tria l c ounse l provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by fa i ling to lit i g at e

whe the r Ge o rge i nte llige ntly wa ive d his right to a j ury tria l. Se c ond, G eo r ge

1c ont en d s t ha t the t ria l c ourt e rre d by finding tha t his c l a im o f ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e

of c ounse l wa s ba

rre d by Supe rior C ourt C rim ina l R u le 61( i ) ( 4 )

. F in a lly

, Ge orge

c onte nds tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d by re f using to g ra

nt a n e vide ntia

ry he a ring to

de te rm i n e whe the r o the r grounds e xiste d for postc o nvic tion re lie f. W e find n o

m e rit to Ge orge ’ s c la i m s. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

.

(2) In M a y 2 008, Ge orge w as ar r e s te d for the s hooting de a th of M a la k

M i c h a e l (“ M ic ha e l” ), a de a c on a nd c h ie f fundra ise r for St. M a rty ’ s C op t i c

Ort h o d o x C hurc h. 1 Prior to tria l, Ge orge wa i ve d his right to a jury tria l by signing

a wa ive r of jury form

, a nd by a sse rting his de s ire t o proc e e d with a be nc h tria l in

the following c olloquy

with the tria l c o urt:

T H E C O U RT : All r ig h t

. M r. G e orge , y ou signe d a pa pe r, a fte r

a c o lloquy wi t h m e , a nd a fte r disc ussions with y our c ounse l,
tha t i ndic a te y our wish to wa ive a j ury tria l

, y o ur wish to give

up y our right

, y o ur c onstitutiona l right, to be t

rie d by a jury a

n d

, inste a d, y our w is h to proc e e d in a b e nc h tria l, with t he j udge sitting a s the trie r of fa c t. Is tha t y our wish?

T H E DE F E N DANT : Ye s, y our Honor.
T H E CO URT : D o y ou h a ve a n y que s t ions or c onc e rns a bout
tha t?

T H E DE F E N DANT : No.
T H E CO URT : M s. Va

n Am e ronge n. DE FE NSE CO UNSE L : N o, Your Honor.

(3) At tria l, four witne sse s t o the inc ide nt, two o f whom a ssiste d in

d i s a rm ing Ge orge a fte r he s hot M ic ha e l, te s tifie d a ga inst Ge orge

. A nu m b er o f

1 Unless otherwise indicated, these facts are taken directly from this Court’s Order in Georg e ’s direct appeal. George v. State , 2010 W L 4009202 (Del. Oct. 13, 2010).

2witne s se s a lso te s ti f i e d c o nc e rning Ge orge ’ s p a tte rn of a nim osity towa rd the

ch u rc h c l e rgy a nd Ge orge ’ s de pre sse d m ood p rior to the shooting. Additiona l l y ,

thre e e xpe rts from the De la wa re Psy c hia tric C e nte r— R obe rt T hom p son, Ph.D., a

fore nsi c p s yc hologist, C a rol Ta va ni, M .D., a psy c hia trist, a nd Ste phe n M e c ha nic k,

M .D., a lso a psy c hia trist, te s tifie d c onc e rning Ge orge ’ s m e nta l sta te a t t he tim e of

t h e i nci d e nt. Drs. Thom pson a nd M e c ha

nic k opine d tha t Ge orge w a s m e nta lly i l l

a t the tim e of t

he shooting

. Dr. Ta va

n i opine d tha t he wa s insa ne a t the tim e of the

s h o o ti ng. G e orge wa s c onvic te d of a ll c ha rge s a ga inst him

, a

nd se nte nc e d to l i f

e i n

pri s o n on the first de gre e m urde r c o nvic tion, t o 15 y e a rs a t Le ve l V on the

a tte m pte d m urde r c onvic ti o n , t o 1 y e a r a t Le ve l V on the re c kle ss e nda nge ring

c onvic tion, a nd to 3 y e a rs a t Le ve l V on e a c h we a pon c onvic tion. Ge o r g e file d a

dire c t a ppe a l with this C ourt.

(4) On dire c t a

ppe a l, Ge orge c la im e d tha t: (1) he w a s de prive d o f his

c onstitutiona

l right to te stify on his own be ha lf; (2) his e xe c ution of the wa ive r of

jury tria l form wa s involunta ry ; (3) one of the m e n ta l he a l t h ex per t s a tte m pte d to

bribe him for his t e stim o ny ; a nd (4) witne s s sta te m e nts m ove d in t o e vide nc e unde r

11 De l. C

. § 3507 did not c om

port with t

he founda

t i o n a l re quire m e nts. In

a ffirm ing the Supe r i o r Co u r t’ s judgm e nt, we c onc lude d tha t Ge orge ’ s c la im s we re

wholly without m e rit a

nd de void of a

ny a rgua bly a ppe a la ble issue

.

3Spe c ific a lly , we sta t e d:

Our re vie w o f the re c ord in this c a s e re fle c ts no fa c t ua l support f o r a ny o f Ge orge ’ s c la im s. As for his first two c la im s , the

re c ord re fle c ts tha t, be fore tria l, th e tria l judge c a re fully

que stione d Ge orge re ga

rding his de c ision t o wa ive a jury t ria l

a nd tha t, d

u ring tria l, the judge c a re fully q ue stione d him

c onc e rning h i s deci s ion not t o te stify in his own be ha lf. The

re c ord re fle c ts tha t Ge orge ’ s de c isi o n s to wa ive a jury tria l a nd

to wa ive his right to te s tify we re k n ow ing a nd v olunta

ry

. The

r ec ord l ike wise doe s not support Ge orge ’ s third c la im tha t on e of the te stify ing m e nta l he a lth e xpe rts a ske d hi m f o r a b ribe

. As
for Ge orge ’ s fourth, a nd fin al

, cl ai m , t he re c ord re fle c ts tha t

two out-of-c ourt s ta te m e n ts we re a dm itte d into e vide nc e unde r § 3507. In ne ithe r c a se is the re a ny s upport f o r G eo r g e ’ s c la i m tha t t he prope r founda

tiona l re quire m e nts of the s t at ut e we re
not m e t. 2

( 5 ) I n Oc tobe r 2011, Ge orge file d a pro se m otion for p ostc onvic t ion r el i ef

.

The Supe rior C o u rt re fe rre d t he m o tion to a Supe rior C ourt C om m issione r for

propose d findings a

nd re c om m e nda tion p ursua

nt to 10 De l

. C

. § 512(b)(1 ) ( b ) 3 an d

S u pe rior C ourt C rim ina l R ule 62(a )(5). 4 T he C om m issione r issue d a re por t

re c o m m e nding tha t the m otion be d en i e d. Ge o rge the n file d m otions for

a ppointm e nt of c ounse l a nd a n ev i d en t i a ry he a ring. The tria l c ourt de nie d

Ge orge ’ s m otion for a

ppointm e nt of c o u ns e l. Soon a fte r, the tria l c ourt de nie d

Ge orge ’ s m o tion for a n e vide ntia ry h e a ring a nd for po s t c onvic tion re lie f. On

2 Id. at *2.

3 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)(b) (“A judg e may also desig nate a Commissioner to conduct hearing s, including evidentiary

hearing s, and to submit to a judg e of the Court proposed finding s of fact and recommendations . . . .”).

4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5) (permitting Commissioners to conduct case-dispositive evidentiary hearing s, and to submit to the cou r t proposed finding s of fact and recommendations).

4ap pe a l, we va c a te d the t ria l c o urt’ s orde r a nd re m a nde d with instruc tions tha t t h e

tria l c ourt a

p point c ounse l for Ge orge , a nd a llow him t o re file obje c tions to the

C om m issione r’ s re port or file a n a m e nde d m otion for postc onvic t ion re lie f.

( 6) In June 2013, G e orge ’ s ne wly a ppointe d c ounse l file d a n a m e nde d

m o t ion for postc onvic tion re l ie f. 5 The tria l c ourt a ga in re fe rre d Ge orge ’ s m otion to

a Supe rior C ourt C o m m issi o n er

. The C om m issione r issue d a re port

re c o m m e nding tha t Ge orge ’ s m otion b e de nie d. G e o rge a ppe a le d from the

C om m issione r’ s findings of fa c t a nd re c om m e nda tion. The Supe r i o r C ourt

c onduc te d a d

e n ov o re vie w, a dopte d the C om m issione r’ s re port a

n d

re c o m m e nda tion, a

n d de nie d postc onvic t ion re lie f. This a ppe a l followe d.

(7) “ W e re vie w a Su

p er i o r C ourt judge ’ s de nia l o f a R u le 61 m otion for

postc onvic tion re lie f for a buse of disc re tion.” 6 C onstit u tiona l que stions a nd othe r

5 Georg e raised seven issues in his amended motion for postconviction relief: (1) trial and appellate counsel were ineffective by failing to obtain, preserve, and raise on direct appeal the issue of an intellig ent waiver of the defendant’s rig ht to jury trial; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to accept the Superior Court’s offer to appoint an independent ex pert witness to evaluate the defendant’s competency ; (3) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investig ate, preserve, and raise an issue of interference by the Department of Correction with the defendant’s ability

to communicate with trial counsel; (4) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investig ate, preserve, and raise the defendant’s alleg ation that the State’s ex pert witness attempted to solicit a bribe; (5) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request sequestration of witnesses and an instruction that certain witnesses not to speak with each other reg a rding the case; (6) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investig ate and retain a pharmacolog ical

ex p ert witness and to present ex pert testimony on the effects of Georg e’s medications at the time of the offenses; and (7) trial counsel was ineffective by failing to permit Georg e to testify in his
own defense.

6 Neal v. State , 80 A.3d 935, 941 (Del. 2013) (citing P loof v. State

, 75 A.3d 811, 819 (Del. 2013)).

5que stions of l aw a re re vie we d de nov o

. 7 “ [W e ] first m ust c onside r the p roc e dura l

re quire m e nts of R

ule 6 1 be fore a ddre ss in g a n y substa ntive issue s. Supe rior C ourt

C rim ina l R

ule 61(i) ( 4 ) ba

rs litiga tion of a ny c la im t

ha t wa s pre viously a djudic a te d

unle ss re c onside ra t ion of the c la im is w a rra nte d in the inte re st of justi ce. ” 8 “ [ A ]

de fe nda n t is not e ntitle d to ha ve a c ourt re -e xa m i ne a n i s sue tha t ha s be e n

pre v iously

re solve d ‘ s im

ply be c a use the c la im

is re fine d or re sta te d.’ ” 9

( 8 ) I f the proc e d

ura l re quire m e nts o f R

ule 61 a re sa t isfie d, we re v i e w

i ne ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im s u nde r t he two-pronge d te s t s e t forth b y t h e

Unite d Sta te s S u p re m e C ourt in Stric k l and v

. W ashington

. 1 0 First, the de fe nda nt

m ust show tha t c ounse l ’ s pe rform a nc e wa s de fic ie nt, “ m e a ning tha t ‘ c ounse l’ s

re pre se nta tion fe ll be l ow a n obje c tive sta nda rd of re a sona

ble ne s s.’ ” 1 1 If c oun s e l is

shown to be de fic ie n t

, t h en t he de fe nda nt m u s t de m onstra

te pre judic e from

c ounse l’ s e rror. 1 2 “ T h e ‘ fa ilure to sta te with p a rtic u la

rity the na ture of the

pre j udic e e xpe rie n c e d is fa ta l to a c l a i m of ine ffe c tive a ssis t an ce o f c ounse l.’ ” 1 3

“ ‘ [A] c o urt ne e d not d e te rm in e w h et h e r c ounse l ’ s pe rform a nc e wa s de fic ie nt

7 Ploof , 75 A.3d at 820 (citing Swan v. State , 28 A.3d 362, 382 (Del. 2011)).

8 Campbell v. State , 2009 W L 1525947, at *1 (Del. 2009).

9 Skinner v. State , 607 A.2d 1170, 1172 (Del.1992) (quoting Riley v. State , 585 A.2d 719, 721 (Del. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Morgan v. Illinois

, 504 U.S. 719 (1992)).

1 0 Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

1 1 Cooke v. State

, 977 A.2d 803, 848 (Del. 2009) (quoting Strickland

, 466 U.S. at 668).

1 2 Strickland

, 466 U.S. at 687.

1 3 Hoskins v. State , 102 A.3d 724, 730 (Del. 2014) (quoting Dawson v. State

, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996)).

6be fore e xa m ining the p re judic e suffe re d b y the d e fe nda nt a s a re su l t o f t h e a lle g e d

de fic ie nc ie s.’ ” 1 4

( 9 ) G e orge ’ s first two c la im s o n a ppe a l re la te to his a lle ge d insuffic ie n t

wa ive r of a jury tria l. G e orge c onte n d s t h at h is tria l c ounse l w a s ine ffe c tive for

fa iling to litiga

te whe the r his wa ive r of a jury tria l wa s m a de k nowingly a

n d

volunta rily

. 1 5 Ge orge a l s o c onte nds tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d by ruling tha t his

c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l wa s ba

rre d unde r R ule 61(i)(4).

(10) W e find tha t Ge orge ’ s first two c la i m s a re p roc e d u r al l y b ar re d unde r

R ule 6 1(i)(4). A s a co n s eq u en ce , we w ill not a ddre ss the m e rits of the issue s

c onta ine d in his m o tion for postc onvic tion re lie f. Our prior ruli n g o n d ire c t a ppe a l

tha t Ge orge ’ s wa ive r o f a jury tria l wa s knowing a n d volunta

ry wa s a s ubsta

ntive

re solution of G e orge ’ s pre se nt ine ffe c tive ne ss of c ounse l c la im

. 1 6 In o r d e r to

pre v a i l on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ouns e l c la im

, G e orge would ha ve to show

tha t he wa s pre

judic e d by his c ounse l’ s fa ilure to c ha lle nge the va lidity of Ge orge ’ s

wa ive r to a jury tria l. B y ruling tha t G e o rge ’ s wa ive r wa s vo l u nta ry a nd knowing,

1 4 Id. (quoting Dabney v. State , 2010 W L 703108, at *2 (Del. Mar. 1, 2010)).

1 5 I n Smith v. State , we found that a judicial inquiry into a valid waiver has two distinct
dimensions:

“F irst, the relinquishment of the rig ht must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the rig ht being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” 918 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Del. 2007) (quoting Marine v. State , 607 A.2d 1185, 1195 (Del. 1992)).

1 6 See Skinner, 6 07 A.2d at 1172.

7we e ffe c tive ly p re c lude d G e orge ’ s a bility to pr ov e pre

judic e u nde r a Stric k

land

a na ly sis. Thus, the Supe rior C ourt did n o t e rr in finding tha t t h i s Co u r t ’s holding

on di r ect ap p e a l ba

rre d Ge orge from m a king t he sa m e c la im

, a l be it in a diffe re nt

form

, unde r R

ule 61(i)(4). R e c onside r at i o n o f t his pre viously a djudic a te d c la im is

not wa rra nte d in the inte re st of justic e

. 1 7

(11) Ge o rge ’ s third a

nd fi n al cl ai m is tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d by fa iling to

gra n t a n e vide n tia

ry he a ring re ga

rding othe r grounds of a lle g e d ine f f ect ive

a ssista nc e of c ounse l. R

ule 61(h)(1) gra nts the Supe rior C ourt broa d d isc re tion in

d e te rm ining whe the r a n e v ide ntia ry he a ring on a postc o nvic tion m otion i s

n ece ssa ry

. 1 8 “ [I] t is w ithin the Supe rior C ourt’ s disc re tion t o de te rm i ne , af t e r

c onside ring t

he m otion, the Sta te ’ s re sponse , the m ov an t ’s r ep l y a nd the re c ord of

a ny prior proc e e d i n g s , w h et h e r a n e vide n tia

ry he a ring is de sira

ble .” 1 9 “ If the

Supe rior C ourt de te r m i n es

. . . t ha t a n e vide ntia ry he a ring is unne c e ssa

ry

. . . the n

sum m a ry disposition of the

m otion is e ntire ly

a ppropria te .” 2 0

1 7 “As this Court has ex plained, the ‘interest of justice’ ex ception provides two pathway s to demonstrate that a claim is not procedurally barred. The ex c eption applies when (1) the previous ruling was clearly

in error or there has been an important change in circumstances, in particular, the factual basis for issues previously posed, or (2) there is an equitable concern of preventing injustice.” Lindsey v. State , 2014 W L 98645, at *3 (Del. 2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

1 8 Maxion v. State , 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996); Pennewell v. State , 2005 W L 578444, at *2 (Del. J an. 26, 2005).

1 9 Marin v. State , 2004 W L 716774, at *1 (Del. 2004) (citing Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1)).

2 0 Maxion , 686 A.2d at 151.

8(12 ) G eo r ge c onte nds tha t a h e a ring should ha v e b e e n he ld c onc e rning: (1)

his a l le g a tion t

ha t c ounse l w a s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to a c c e p t t h e t r i al c ourt’ s offe r

t o ap point a n inde pe nde nt p sy c hia trist to e va lua te h is c om pe te nc y ; (2 ) h i s

a lle ga t i o n t h at c o u nse l wa s i ne ffe c t ive for fa iling to re que st the tria l c ourt to

se q u e s te r witne sse s a nd instruc t w itne sse s not to d i sc uss the ir te stim ony ; (3) his

a lle ga tion tha t c ounse l w a s ine ffe c tive for f ai l ing to a llow h im t o t e stify ; (4) his

a lle ga tion tha t the De pa

rtm e nt of C o rre c t ion pre v e n te d him from c o m m u n i c a ting

with c o unse l due t o h is b e ing house d in the prison infirm a ry ; a nd (5) his a ll eg at i o n

tha t Dr. M e c ha

nic k trie d to solic it a

bribe during his e va lua tion. W e disa gre e

.

(13) The Supe rior C o u r t d i d n ot a buse i ts broa d d isc re t ion unde r R ule

61(h)(1). B e fore de ny ing Ge orge ’ s m o ti o n f o r a n e vide ntia

ry he a ring, the tria l

c ourt c onside re d Ge orge ’ s tria l a n d a ppe lla te c ounse l s’ a ffida vits. The c ourt a lso

re vie we d Ge orge ’ s own a ffida vits, t he Sta te ’ s s u b m i s s i ons, a nd the tria l re c ord.

B a se d o n t h e c o urt’ s findings, it de te rm ine d tha t a n e vide ntia ry he a ring wa s

u n n eces s a ry

. Our re v i e w of the re c ord re ve a ls no e rror on the pa rt of the Supe ri o r

C ourt in its d isposition of Ge orge ’ s m otion for postc onvic tion re lie f. Ac c o rdingly

,

we find tha t the Supe rior C ourt a c te d w ithin its disc r et i o n to dispose of t he m a tte r

sum m a rily without a n e vide ntia

ry he a ring.

NOW

, TH E RE F OR E, IT IS OR DER ED tha t the judgm e nt of the Supe rior

C ourt is AFFIRM E D

.

9B Y THE C OUR T:

/s/ Ja m e s T. Va

ughn Jr.
Justic e

10