I N TH E S UP ERI O R CO URT O F TH E S TATE O F DELAW ARE

S T A T E OF DE L A WA RE )

)

v

. ) I K 12- 09- 0 484- 01

) P F B P P P A B P P ( F )

W I LLI AM T. W ARREN ) I n an d f or K en t Cou n ty

)

Def en dan t. )

I D No. 1207020480 )

CO M M I S S IO N ER'S REP O RT AND RECO M M ENDATI O N

Up o n D ef

en d a n t 's M o t i o n f

o r P o s t co n v ict io n Relief

Pu rs u an t t o S u p erio r Co u rt Crim in al Ru le 61

S teph en R. Wel ch

, E s q.

, f or Dav i d F av ata, E s q

. , Depu t y A ttor n ey Gen er al

, Depar tm en t of J u s ti ce, f

or th e S tate of Del awar e.

Wi l l i am T

. War

r en

, P r o s e

.

F RE UD, Com

m i s s i on er

F ebr u ar y 24, 2016

T h e def en dan t, Wi l l i am T

. War

r en ( “ War

r en ”)

, pl ed g

u i l ty o n Nov em

b er 29, 2012, to

on e cou n t o f P os s es s i on of a F i r ear m by a P er s on P r oh i b i t ed ( P F BP P )

, 1 1 D e l

. C. §

1448. H e was al s o f

aci n g s i x t een addi ti on al cou

n t s o f P F B P P

. 1 Nolle pr os equis wer e

1 W ar r en h ad o r i gi

n al l y f aced a n um b er o f addi

t i o n a l ch ar ges wh i ch t h e St at e h ad

pr ev i o us l y nolle pr os equis o n Oct o b er 2, 2012 f o r l ack o f m er i

t due t o n ew f

act s un co v er ed.en

ter ed by th e S t a t e o n th e addi ti on al 16 P F B P P ch ar g es i n ex ch an g e f or War r en ’ s

pl ea. A s par

t of th e P le a Agr eem en

t th e par ti es ag r eed th at War

r en was a h abi tu al

of f en der an d th at h e s h ou l d be s en ten ced to ei g h

t y ear s m

i n im um m a ndator

y

i n car cer ati o n f

ol l owed by pr obati on

. War r en f aced a m i n i m u m m an dator

y s en ten ce of

ei g h t y ear s on each of th e 17 P F B P P ch ar g es

, an d a m ax i m u m of l i f e i n pr i s on i f h e h ad

h e g o n e to tr i al a nd b e e n f o u nd g u i l ty as ch ar g ed. T h e Cou r t ag r eed wi th t

h e

r ecom m en ded sen

ten ce an d s en

ten ced War

r en accor d i n g l y

.

T h e ch ar g es s tem f

r om a h om

e i n v as i on d u r i n g wh i ch th e v

i cti m s r epor

ted h av i n g

n u m er ou s f i r ear m s s tol en

. I n i ti al l y th e v i cti m s i den ti f i ed War r en an d h i s co- d ef

en dan t,

A n th on y Ri ch ar ds on ( “ Ri ch ar ds on ”)

, as t h e p e r p e t r ator s of th e h om

e i n v as i on an d th ef

t.

War r en an d R ic h a r d son wer e q u i ckl y s topped by th e pol i ce bas ed u p on th e v i cti m s ’

des cr i pti on of th ei r v eh i cl e. War r en was th e d

r i v er o f th e v eh i cl e. On ce s topped, t h e

pol i ce wer e abl e to s ee th e s tol en f i r ear m s i n pl ai n v i ew on th e car ’ s back s eat. War r en

an d Ri ch ar ds on wer e t

h en ch ar g ed w i th m

u l ti pl e of f en s es i n cl u d i n g Robber

y an d T h ef

t

al on g wi th

P F B P P

. S u

bs equ en tl y

, th e v i cti m s ch an g ed th ei r r epor t an d adm i tted th at

War r en an d Ri ch ar ds on h ad n o t s tol en th e f i r ear m s bu t th at t h e v i cti m s h ad o f

f er ed

War r en an d Ri ch ar ds on a r ewar d f or r ecov er i n g th e w eapon s

. War r en an d Ri ch ar ds on

s u cces sf u l l y r ecov er ed th e f

i r ear m s bu t th e v i cti m f

ai l ed to g i v e th e pr om

i s ed r ewar d

s o War r en an d Ri ch ar ds on kept th e weapon s

. Con sequ en tl y

, th e v i cti m s th en cal l ed

th e pol i ce an d i den

ti f i ed th e d ef

en dan ts as h av i n g th e weapon s i n t h ei r v eh i cl e l eadi n g

to th ei r ar

r es t w i t h th e weapon s i n th e car

. W ar r en w a s a p e r s on pr o h i bi ted f r om

pos s es s i n g a f

i r ear m du e to h i s pr ev i ou s f

el on y con v i cti on s an d h i s adm

i t ted h abi tu al

of f en der s tatu s

. F or th i s r eas on W ar r en wou l d h av e f

aced a m i n i m u m m an dator

y

s en t en ce of ei g h

t y ear s i n p r i son on each P F B P P ch ar g e an d t he p o s s ibi l i ty of l i f

e i n

pr i s on h ad h e been f

ou n d g u i l ty

.

2Cl ear l y

, g i v en t h e ev i den ce, W ar

r en ’ s pl ea was ex t

r aor di n ar i l y ben ef

i ci al to h i m

.

War r en di d n ot appeal h i s con v i cti on or sen

ten ce t o th e D el awar e S u pr em e Cou

r t.

I n s tead h e f

i l ed th e pen d i n g m

oti on f or pos tcon

v i cti on r el i ef pu

r s u an t t o S u per i or Cou

r t

Cr i m i n al Ru l e 61 on M ar ch 19, 2 013 i n wh i ch h e al l eg es

, i n par t, i n ef f ecti v e as s i s tan ce

of cou n s el

.

T h e m atter was s et f

o r b r i ef i n g an d War

r en ’ s tr ia l c o un s el r es pon ded to t h e

cl ai m s of i n ef

f ecti v e as s i s tan ce of cou

n s el

. Nex t War

r en m ov ed to am en d h i s m

oti on

to add addi ti on al g r ou

n ds f or r el i ef

. T h e m oti on wa s g r an

ted an d t r i al cou n s el was

g i v en an oppor

tu n i ty to r epl y to th e n e w al l eg ati on

. T h e S tate al s o r es pon d ed to t h e

m oti on an d War r en f i l ed a r es pon s e. Nex t

, pr i or to t h e m atter bei n g set f

or deci s i on

,

War r en f i l ed a m oti o n f or A ppoi n tm en t o f Cou n s el

, w h i ch was g r an

ted an d A l ex an der

F u n k, w as ap p o int e d to r epr es en t War r en i n h i s m

oti on

. A f t er r ev i ewi n g th e f

i l e,

appoi n ted co uns e l d eter

m i n ed th at th er e wer e n o m er i tor i o u s g r ou n d s f or r el i ef an d

m ov ed t o wi th dr aw as cou

n s el

. H e s u

bs equ en tl y f i l ed a m em

or an du m wi th th e Cou

r t

detai l i n g h i s r ev i ew of t he c a s e an d War r en ’ s ar g u m en ts

. On October 7, 2015 t h e

Cou r t g r an ted appoi n

t ed cou n s el ’ s m oti on t o wi th dr aw.

W ARREN’ S CO NTENTI O NS

I n h i s o r i g i n al m

oti on f i l ed A pr i l 11, 2 013 War

r en r ai s ed a v ar i ety o f cl ai m s, al l

g r ou ped tog eth er u

n der o n e g r ou

n d f or r el i ef ;

Gr ou n d On e: I n ef

f ecti v e A s s i s tan ce of Cou

n s el

. Def en s e cou n s el f ai l ed to con s u l t wi t

h M ov an t abou t t h e

r i g h t to appeal

.

Def en s e Cou n s el an d S t ate pr om

i s ed M o v an

t on Nov em

ber

29, 2012 th at M ov an

t wou l d r ecei v e 18 m

o n th L ev e l 3

P r obati on s en

ten ce

- t h e s am e s e nt e nc e of

f er ed to codef en dan t A n th on y Ri ch ar ds o n

.

3Def en s e Cou n s el pr es s u

r ed M ov an

t to p r ov i de i n f

or m ati on

to as s i s t h i s cas e an d g ai n a m or e f av or abl e pl ea of

f er f or

m ov an t.

B r ady M ater i al n ot r equ es ted b y Def en s e Cou n sel

.

Def en s e Cou n s el di d n ot f

i l e M oti on to S u

p pr es s.

Def en s e Cou n s el F ai l ed to Dev el op M i t i g ati n g E v i den ce.

On M ay 15, 2013 War

r en f i led an am en dm

en t to h i s m

oti o n s eeki n g to

i n cor por ate an af

f i dav i t by M ov an

t th at “ o u tl i n es a s er i es of qu es ti on s ” t ha t M ov an t

wou l d l i ke Def

en s e Cou n s el to an s w er

, to- w i t. I t i s l i s t ed as g r ou n d t wo.

Gr ou n d T wo: D ef

en s e Cou n sel s h ou l d n ot r ecom

m en d to a d e f

e nd a nt

acceptan ce o f a pl ea u

n l es s appr opr i ate i n

v es ti g ati on an d

s tu d y of th e cas e h as been c o m p le t e d

. D o y ou ag r ee or

di s ag r ee?

A n appr opr i ate i n

v es ti ga ti o n i n

v ol v es i n ter v i ewi n g t h e

v i cti m s an d v i s i ti n g t

h e cr i m e scen e. Wer e th es e two th i n g s

i n cl u ded i n y ou

r i n v es ti g ati on ?

A r e y ou awar e th at B r ady m ater i al i s a par

t of Du e P r oces s ?

Di d y ou f i l e f o r

, an d pr ov i de to Mov an t, B r ady m ater i al ?

Def en s e Cou n s el s h ou l d n o t m

i s r epr es en t m atter s of f

act or

l aw.

I m por tan t r i g h ts of the a c cu s ed can be pr otected an d

pr es er v ed on l y by pr o m

pt l eg al acti o n

. Def

en s e Cou n s el

s h ou l d con s i der al l p r ocedu r al s teps wh i ch i n g ood f

ai th m ay

be taken

, i n cl u di n g

, f

o r ex am p l e, M o ti on f

or P r e- T r i al

Rel eas e; M oti on f

or Ch an g e o f Ve nue or Con ti n u an ce;

M oti on t o S u

ppr es s E v i den ce.

4M oti on t o S u ppr es s M ov an

t’ s S tatem

en t n o f i l ed.

D e f en s e Cou n s el di d n ot k eep M ov an

t pr om ptl y i n f or m e d

r eg ar d ing dev el o pm

en t s i n th e cas e an d th e pr og r es s of

pr epar i n g th e def

en se.

Def en s e Cou n s el di d n ot pr ov i d e copi es of th e statem en ts

f r om th e al l eg ed v i cti m s

.

Cer tai n deci s i on s r el ati n g to a cas e a r e ult i m atel y f or t h e

M ov an t t o deci de an d D e f

e ns e Cou n sel to deci de. T h e

deci s i on s to be m a d e b y M o v an t af ter con s u l tati on wi t

h

Def en s e Cou n s el i n cl u d e: wh at pl ea t o en ter ; wh et h er to

accept a pl ea ag r eem en t ; wh eth er t o wai v e ju

r y t r i al ;

wh eth er to tes ti f

y i n h i s or h er own be hal f ; an d wh eth er to

appeal

.

M ov an t’ s des i r e t o appeal

.

A s n oted abov e, af

ter r ev i ewi n g th e two g r o un ds f or r el i ef wer e m er i tl es s an d

th at appoi n

ted cou n s e l con cl u ded t

h at War r en ’ s ti m e w er e n o l eg i ti m ate g r ou n ds f or

r el i ef

.

DI S CUS S I O N

Un der Del awar e l aw, th i s Cou r t m u st f i r s t deter m i n e wh eth er W ar

r en h as m et

th e pr ocedu

r al r equ i r em en

ts of S u pe r io r C o ur t Cr i m

i n al Ru l e 61( I ) bef

o r e i t m ay

con s i der th e m er i ts of h i s p os tcon v i cti on r el i ef cl ai m

. 2 T h i s i s War r en s ’ f i r st m oti on f or

pos tcon v i cti on r el i ef

, an d i t was f

i l ed wi th i n on e y ear of h i s con v i cti on becom

i n g f i n al

.

T h er ef o r e, th e r equ i r em

en ts of Ru l e 61( i ) ( 1 )

- r equ i r i n g f i l i n g wi th i n on e y ear an d ( 2)

-

r equ i r i n g th at al l g r ou

n ds f or r el i ef be pr es en

ted i n i n i ti a l R u l e 6 1 m

oti on

, ar e m et.

Non e o f W a r

r en ’ s cl ai m s w er e r ai s ed at th e pl ea, s en ten ci n g

, or on d i r ect appeal

.

2 B ailey v

. State, 588 A

. 2d 1121, 1127 ( Del

. 1991)

.

5T h er ef

o r e, th ey ar e bar

r ed b y Ru l e 61( i ) ( 3)

, abs en t a dem on s t r ati on of cau s e f

or t h e

def au l t an d pr eju di ce. T o som e ex ten t each o f War

r en ’ s cl ai m s ar e bas ed on

i n ef f ecti v e as s i s tan ce of cou

n s el ; th er ef

or e, h e h as al l eg ed cau se f or h i s f ai l u r e to h av e

r ai sed th em ear l i er

.

A t th i s poi n

t

, Ru l e 61( i ) ( 3 ) does n ot bar r el i ef as to War r en s ’ g r ou n ds f or r el i ef

,

pr ov i ded h e dem

on str ates t

h at h i s cou

n s el was i n ef

f ecti v e an d th at h e was p r eju di ced

by cou n s el ’ s actio ns

. T o p r ev ai l on h i s cl ai m of i n ef f ecti v e as s i s tan ce of cou

n s el

,

War r en m u s t m eet th e two- p r on g tes t of Str ickland v. W as hington

. 3 I n th e con

tex t of

a g u i l ty p lea ch al l en g e, Str ickland r equ i r es a d ef en dan t s h ow: ( 1) th at cou

n s el ' s

r epr es en tati on f el l bel o w an objecti v e s tan dar d of r eas on abl en es s ; an d ( 2) t h a t cou n s el ' s

acti on s wer e pr eju di ci al to h i m i n t h a t t h er e i s a r eas on abl e pr obabi l i ty th at, bu t f or

cou n sel ' s er r or

, h e wou l d n ot h av e p l ed g u i l ty an d wou l d h av e i n s i s ted on g o i n g to tr i al

an d t h at th e r es u l t o f a tr i al wou l d h av e been h i s acqu i ttal

. 4 T h e f ai l u r e to es tabl i s h th at

a def en d an t wou l d n ot h av e pl ed g

u i l ty an d wou l d h av e pr oceeded to tr i al i s s u f f i ci en t

cau s e f or den i al of r el i ef

. 5 I n addi ti o n

, Del awar e cou r ts h av e con s i s t en

tl y h el d th at i n

s etti n g f or t h a cl ai m o f i n ef

f ecti v e as s i s tan ce o f cou

n s el

, a def

en d an t m u s t m ake

con cr ete al l eg ati on s of actu al pr eju di ce an d s u bs t a nt ia t e th em or r i s k su m m ar y

di s m i s s al

. 6 Wh en ex am

i n i n g th e r epr es en

t ati on o f cou

n s el pu r s u an t to th e f i r s t pr on g

of t h e Str ickland tes t, th er e i s a s tr o n g pr es u m pti on th at cou

n s el ' s con d

u ct was

3 466 U. S. 668 (1984)

.

4 I d

. a t 687.

5 Somer ville v. State

, 7 03 A

. 2d 6 29, 631 ( Del

. 1997) ( ci t i n g A lbur y v. State

, 551 A

. 2d 53,

60 ( Del

. 1988) ) ( ci

t at i o n s o m

i t t ed)

.

6 See e. g.

, Outten v. State

, 720 A

. 2d 547, 557 ( Del

. 1998) (ci t i n g B oughner v

. State

, 1995

W L 466465 at *1 ( Del

. Supr

. ) )

.

6pr of

es s i on al l y r eas on abl e. 7 T h i s s tan dar d i s h i g h l y dem an di n g

. 8 Str ickland m an dates

th at, w h en v i ewi n g cou

n s el ' s r epr es en

tati on

, th i s Cou

r t m u s t en deav or to “ el i m

i n ate t h e

di s tor ti n g ef f ects o f h i n ds i g h t. ” 9

F ol l owi n g a com

pl ete r ev i ew of th e r ecor d i n th i s m atter

, i t i s abu n dan tl y cl ear

th at War r en h a s f ai l ed to al l eg e an

y f acts s u f f i ci en t to s u bs tan t i ate h i s cl ai m th at h i s

attor n ey was i n ef

f ecti v e. I f i n d tr i al cou

n s el ’ s af f i dav i t an d appoi n

t ed cou n s el ’ s m oti on

to wi th d r aw, i n con

ju n cti on w i th th e r ecor d, m

or e cr edi bl e t

h at War r en s ’ s el f

- s er v i n g

cl ai m s t h at h i s cou

n sel ’ s r epr es en

tati on w as i n ef

f ecti v e. War

r en s ’ cou n s el cl ear l y an d

u n equ i v ocal l y den i es th e al l eg ati on s

. F u r ther m or e, appoi n

ted cou n s el t h or ou g h l y

r ev i ewe d t he r e c o r d i n th i s cas e an con cl u ded th at n o n e of War r en ’ s cl ai m s wer e

m er i tor i ou s an d th at n o oth er m er i t or i ou s cl ai m s cou l d be f o u n d.

A s n oted, W ar

r en was f

aci n g th e pos s i bi l i t y of l i f e i n pr i s on h ad h e been

con v i cted, an d th e s en

ten ce an d pl e a w e r e r eas o n abl e u n der al l th e ci r cu

m s tan ces

,

es peci al l y i n l i g h

t of th e ov er

wh el m i n g ev i den ce ag ai n s t h i m

. P r i or to th e en tr y of t h e

pl ea, W ar

r en an d h i s attor

n ey di s cu s s ed th e cas e. T he p lea bar g ai n was cl ear l y

adv an tag eou s to War

r en

. Cou n sel ’ s r epr es en

tati on was cer

tai n l y wel l wi th i n th e r an g e

r equ i r ed by Str ickland

. A ddi ti o n al l y

, w h en War r en en t er ed h i s g

u i l t y pl ea, h e s tated

h e w as s ati s f

i ed wi th def

en se cou n sel’ s per f

or m an ce. H e i s bou

n d by h i s s tatem

en t

u n l es s h e pr es en

ts cl ear an d con

v i n ci n g ev i den ce t o th e cont r a r y. 1 0 Con s equ en tl y

,

7 A lbur y

, 551 A

. 2 d at 59 ( ci

t i n g Str ickland

, 466 U. S. at 689)

.

8 F lamer v. State

, 585 A

. 2d 736, 754 ( Del

. 1990) ( quo t i n g K immelman v

. M

or r is on

, 477

U. S. 365, 383 (1986) )

.

9 Str ickland

, 466 U. S. at 689.

1 0 M a pp v. State

, 1994 W L 91264, at *2 (Del

. Supr

. )( ci t i n g Sullivan v. State

, 636 A

. 2d

931, 937- 938 ( Del

. 1994) )

.

7War

r en h as f ai l ed to es tabl i s h th at h i s cou n s el ’ s r epr es en

tati on was i n ef

f ecti v e u n der

th e S tr ickland t es t.

E v en as s u

m i n g

, a r guendo

, th at cou

n s el ’ s r epr es e nt ati on o f War r en was

s om eh o w def i ci en t, W a r r en m u s t s ati s f y t h e s econ d p r on g o f th e Str ickland tes t,

pr eju di ce. I n s etti n g f

or th a cl ai m of i n ef

f ecti v e as s i s tan ce of cou

n s el

, a def en dan t m u s t

m ake con cr ete al l eg ati on s of actu al pr eju di ce an d s u bs tan ti ate t h em or r i s k di s m

i s s al

. 1 1

I n an attem

p t to s h o w pr eju di ce, War

r en s i m pl y as s er ts th at h i s cou

n s el was i n ef

f ecti v e.

H i s s tatem

en ts ar e i n su f

f i ci en t to e s t a b l i s h pr eju di ce, par ti cu l ar l y i n l i g h

t of t h e

ov er wh el m i n g ev i den ce ag ai n s t h i m

. T h er ef or e, I f i n d War r en s ’ g r ou

n d f or r el i ef ar e

m er i tl es s.

T o th e ex ten

t th at War r en al l eg es h i s p l ea was i n

v ol u n tar y

, th e r ecor d con

tr adi cts

s u ch an al l eg ati on

. W h en addr es s i n g th e q u es ti on o f wh eth er a pl ea was

con s ti tu ti on al l y kn o wi n g an d v ol

u n tar y

, th e Cou r t l ooks to a pl ea col l oqu

y to deter m i n e

i f th e w ai v er of con sti tu

ti on al r i g h

ts was k n owi n g an d v ol

u n tar y

. 1 2 A t th e g

u i l ty

- pl ea

h ear i n g

, th e Cou

r t as ked War

r en wh eth er h e u

n der s tood th e n atu

r e of th e ch ar g es

, t

h e

con s equ en ces of h i s pl ea di n g g u i l ty

, an d w h eth er h e was v o l u n tar i l y pl eadi n g g

u i l ty

.

T h e Cou r t as ked W ar

r en i f h e u

n der s tood h e w ou l d wai v e h i s con s ti tu ti onal r i g h

ts i f

h e pl ed g u i l ty ; i f h e u

n der s tood each of th e con s ti tu ti on al r i g h ts l i s ted o n th e T r

u th

- i n

S en ten ci n g Gu i l ty P l ea F o r m ( “ G u i l t y P l ea F or

m ”) ; an d wh eth er h e g av e tr u th f u l

an s w er s to al l th e qu es t i on s on th e f or m

. T h e Cou

r t as ked War

r en i f h e h ad d i s cu s s ed

th e g u i l ty pl ea an d i ts con s equ en ces f u l l y wi th h i s attor

n ey

. T h e Cou

r t as ked War

r en

i f h e w as g i v i n g t

h e p l ea of h i s own f

r ee wi l l becau s e h e w as s ati s f i ed th at t h e S tate h ad

1 1 Lar s on v. State

, 1995 W L 389718, at *2 ( D el

. Supr

. ) ( ci t i n g Y ounger

, 580 A

. 2d 552,

556 (Del

. 1990) )

.

1 2 Godinez v. M

or an

, 509 U. S. 389, 400 ( 1993)

.

8s u f

f i ci en t ev i den ce to con

v i ct h i m

. T h e Cou

r t al s o as ked War

r en i f h e w a s s ati s f

i ed

wi t h th i s c ou

n s el ’ s r epr es en

tati on

. War

r en an s wer ed each of t h es e q u es ti on s

af f i r m ati v el y

. 1 3 I f

i n d cou n sel ’ s r epr es en

tati on s f ar m or e cr edi bl e th an War

r en s ’ s el f

s er v i n g

, v ag u e al l eg ati on s

.

F u r th er m or e, pr i or to en

ter i n g h i s g

u i l ty pl ea, W ar

r en s i g n ed a Gu i l ty P l ea F or m

an d P l ea A g r eem en

t i n h i s own h an dwr i ti n g

. War r en s ’ s i g n atu

r es on th e f

or m s i n di cate

th at h e u n der s tood th e con sti tu

t i on al r i g h ts h e was r el i n qu i s h i n g by pl eadi n g g u i l ty an d

th at h e f r eel y an d v o l

u n tar i l y deci ded t o pl ead g

u i l ty to the ch ar g es l i s ted i n th e P l ea

A g r eem en

t. W ar r en i s b ou n d by th e s tatem

en ts h e m ade on th e s igne d G ui l ty P l ea

F or m

, u n l e s s he p r o ves o t

h er wi s e b y cl ear an d con

v i n ci n g ev i den ce. 1 4 I con f i den tl y

f i n d th at War

r en en t er ed h i s g u i l ty

pl ea kn owi n g l y an d v ol

u n tar i l y an d t

h at War r en s ’

f i r s t g r ou n d f or r el i ef ar e com pl etel y m er i tl es s.

CO N CLUS I O N

I f i n d th at War

r en s ’ cou n s el r e p r e s e n

ted h i m i n a com

peten t an d ef f ecti v e

m an n er an d th at War

r en h a s f a i l ed to dem

on s t r ate an y pr eju d i ce stem

m i n g f r om t h e

r epr es en tati on

. I al s o f

i n d th at War

r en s ’ g u i l t y p lea was en

ter ed kn o wi n g l y an d

v ol u n tar i l y

. I r ecom

m en d th at th e Cou

r t den y W a r r en s ’ m oti on f or pos t con

v i cti on

r el i ef as pr ocedu

r al l y bar r ed an d com

pl etel y m er i tl es s

.

/ s /A n d r ea M

. F r eu d

Com m i s s i on er

A M F /jb

oc: P r oth on otar

y

1 3 State v. W

ar r en

, ( No v em

b er 29, 2012) T r

. at 6- 9.

1 4 Sommer

ville 703 A

. 2 d a t 632.

9