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 : I D N o. 1706010844

: I n an d f

or K en t Cou n ty

v

. :

: RK 17- 07- 0360- 0 1

DE RE K S

. K

UNI T Z

, : Rape 2 n d WO Con ( F )

:
Def en dan t

. :

O R D ER

S u bm i tted: October 25, 2 019

Deci ded: Nov em

ber 21, 2 019

On th i s 21 s t d ay of Nov em

ber 2019, af

ter con s i der i n g Der ek K

u n i tz’ s m oti on f or

pos tcon v i cti on r el i ef

, th e Com m i s s i on er ’ s Repor

t an d R e com

m en dati on
, th e S tate’ s

r es pon s e, an d th e r ecor d i n th i s cas e, i t appear s th at:

1. On Decem

ber 13, 2017, M r

. K

u n i tz pl ed g

u i l ty to on e cou

n t o f Rape i n t

h e

S econ d Deg r ee W i th ou

t Con s en t, i n v i ol ati o n of

11 Del. C

. § 772.

2. A s par t of t h e pl ea ag r eem en

t, th e S tate an d th e def

en se ag r eed to r ecom

m en d

a s en ten ce of t wen ty

- f i v e y ear s i n car cer at i on su s pen ded af ter f i f t een y ear s
, f

ol l owed

by pr obati on

. T h e Cou

r t f ol l owed th e s en

ten ce r ecom

m en dati on and s e nt e nc ed M r

.

K u n i tz accor di n g l y

.

3. M r

. K

u n i tz di d n ot appeal h i s con v i ctio n or sen

ten ce to th e D el awar e

S u p r em e Co ur t

. I n s tead, h e f

i l ed th i s m

o ti on f or p os tcon

v i cti on r el i ef pu

r s u an t to

S u p er i o r Cou

r t Cr i m i n al Ru l e 6 1. 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

.

H e al s o al l eg es th at h i s pl ea was n ot kn owi n g an d v o l u n tar y

. F i n al l y , h e al l eg es th at

th e cou n t i n th e i n di ctm en

t al l eg i n g th e ch ar g e to wh i ch h e pl ed was “ f au l ty ” becau s e

i t d id n ot pr oper l y al l eg e th e el em en ts of th e of

f en s e. H e al s o al l eg es th at t h e

i n di ctm en t was v oi d becau s e th e g r an d j u r y f o r eper s o n di d n ot s i g n th e i n di ctm en t. 1

1 I n f act

, t h e f o r eper s o n a

n d s ecr et ar y o f t h e gr an d j ur y b o t h s i gn ed t h e i n di ct m en t

.4. I n h er S eptem ber 11, 2019 Repor

t an d Recom

m en dati on
, th e Com

m i s s i on er

f u l l y an d cor

r ectl y addr es s ed M r

. K

u n i tz’ s ar g u m en ts

. S h e f ou n d th em t o be wi th ou

t

m er i t an d r ecom

m en d ed th at th e Cou

r t den y h i s m oti on

. M r

. K

u n i tz di d n ot f

i l e

ex cepti o n s to h er Repor

t

.

NO W

, TH EREF O R E, af ter a de novo r ev i ew of th e r ecor d i n th i s m atter

, f or

th e r eas on s s tated i n th e Com m i s s i on er ’ s Repor

t an d Recom

m e n d ati o n d ated S eptem

ber

11, 2019;

I T I S H E R E B Y O R D E R ED th at th e Com m i s s io ne r ’ s R e p o r t a n d

Recom m en dati on attach ed as E x h i bi t “ A ”, i s adopted by th e Cou r t i n i ts en ti r ety

. M r

.

K u n i tz’ s m oti on f or pos tcon

v i cti on r el i ef pu

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

r t Cr i m i n al Ru l e 6 1

i s th er ef or e DENI ED

.

/s /J ef f r ey J Cl ar k

J u dg e

2

# E xh ib it A

3I 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 O F D E L A WA RE ) I D No. 1706010844 ) I n an d f

or K en t Cou n ty

v

. ) ) RK 17- 0 7- 0360- 01

DE RE K S

. K

UNI T Z

, ) Rape 2 n d WO Con ( F ) )

Def en dan t. )

CO M M I S S I O NER'S REP O RT AND R ECO M M ENDATI O N

U p o n Def

en d an t 's M o t io n f

o r P o s t co n vict i o n Relief

P u rs u an t t o S u p erio r Co u rt Crim in al R u l e 61

K ath l een A

. Di cker s on
, E s q.
, Depu ty A ttor n ey Gen er al

, Depar

tm en t of J u sti ce, f

or t h e
S t ate of D el awar e.

Der ek S

. K

u n i tz, p r o s e.

F RE UD, Com

m i s s i on er
S eptem ber 11, 2019

T h e def en dan t, Der ek S

. K

u n i tz ( “ K u n i tz”)

, pl ed g

u i l ty o n Decem

ber 13, 2017,

as ch ar g ed, to on e cou

n t of Rape i n th e S econ d Deg r ee Wi th ou t Con s en t, 11 D el. C

. §

772. A s par

t of th e pl ea deal th e S t ate an d t he d e f e ns e ag r eed u

pon a r ecom

m en ded

s en ten ce of t wen ty

- f i v e y ear s i n car cer ati on su spen d ed af ter ser v i n g f i f t een y ear s
, ten of

wh i ch wer e m

i n i m u m m an d ator

y f ol l owed by pr obati on

. T h e Cou r t ag r eed wi t h t

h e

s en ten ce r ecom

m en dati on an d s en

ten ced K u n i tz accor di n g l y

. H ad K

u n i tz g on e to tr i al

an d been f

ou n d g u i l ty as ch ar g ed h e f

aced twen ty

- f i v e y ear s i n pr i s on

. K

u n i tz di d n ot

4appeal h i s con v i cti on or s en

t en ce to th e S t ate S u

pr em e Cou r t. I n s tead, K

u n i t z f i l ed t h e

pen di n g m

oti on f or pos tcon

v i cti on r el i ef pu

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

r t Cr i m i n al Ru l e 6 1

on Decem ber 3, 2018 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

.

FACTS

T h e f ol l owi n g ar e th e f

acts as ou

tl i n ed b y th e S t ate i n t

h ei r r epl y t o Kunit z’ s

m o t io n a n d docu

m en ted by accom

pan y i n g ex h i bi ts i n cl u di n g th e pol i ce r epor t an d a

ps y ch i atr i c ev al u ati on o f th e v i cti m attach ed to th e S tate’ s Repl y

.

T h e d ef en dan t w a s ar

r es ted on J u

n e 30, 2017, an d

s u bs equ en tl y ch ar g ed by i n di ctm en t wi th R a p e S econ d
Deg r ee, a v i ol ati on o f 11 Del. C

. § 772. T h e cr i m e occu r r ed

wh i l e th e def

en dan t was s tay i n g wi t

h h i s ex

- g i r l f

r i en d an d
[ n am e r edacted] ( t

h e “ v i cti m

”)

, h i s ex

- g i r l f

r i en d’ s pr of

ou n d l y d is a b led 28- y ear ol d dau g h ter

, at th ei r h ou s e i n [ K ent

C ou n t y ]

, Del awar e ( E x

h i bi t “ A ”)

. T h e def

en dan t’ s ex

g i r l f r i en d r epor

ted to th e pol i ce t

h at on th e m

or n i n g o f M ar ch
4, 2 017, sh e r

u s h ed i n to h er l i v i n g r oom af

ter s h e th ou g h

t s h e
h ear d h er dau g h

ter ch oki n g

. Wh en s h e en ter ed t h e r oom
, s h e wi tn es sed th e v i cti m s i tti n g on t h e g r ou n d per f or m i n g f el l ati o

on th e def en dan t, wh o was seated i n a ch ai r

. T h e def en dan t

qu i ckl y pu l l ed u

p h i s pajam

a pan ts an d tol d

h i s ex

- g i r l f

r i en d

th at th i s was “ th e f

i r s t ti m e i t h appen ed. ” Wh en h i s ex

g i r l f r i en d dem an ded th at th e def en dan t l eav e h er h ou s e, h e

s t a t e d

, “ I m ade on e m

i s take an d y ou ’ r e g oi n g to t h r o w m e

ou t? ”

T r ooper M u

r ph y of th e Del a w a r e S tate P ol i ce was th e f i r s t

r es p on di n g of

f i cer

. H e n oted th at th e v i cti m cou l d n ot be

i n ter v i ewed d u e to h er d i s a b il i ty

. Wh i l e th e tr o oper was at

th e r e s i d e nc e
, th e v i cti m m ade “ del u s i on al ” an d

“ n on s en s i cal ” s tatem

en ts

. H er m

ot he r r epor

t ed t h at th e

v i cti m h ad di f

f i cu l ty di s cer

n i n g tr u th f r o m r ealit y

. L ater

D e t e c t i v e Dan B l om

qu i st of Del awar e S tate P ol i ce’ s Cr i m i n a l

I n v es ti g ati on s U n i t was as s i g n ed to i n v es ti g ate th e cas e. H e

m et th e v i cti m an d deter

m i n ed th at h er di sabi l i ty pr ecl u ded an

5i n ter v i ew.

Det. B l om

qu i s t i n ter v i ewed th e def

en d an t at Del awar e S tate

P ol i ce T r oop 3

. H e adm i tted th at h e r ecei v ed f

el l ati o f r o m
th e v i cti m

. H e r epeatedl y stated th at h e di d n ot f or ce h er to

en g ag e i n th e s ex act. H e al s o i n di cated th at h e n eeded h el p

“ s ex u al wi s e” on k

n owi n g “ wh o to do i t wi th an d w h o n ot to

do i t wi t h

. ” H e adm

i tted th at h av i n g s ex w i th th e v i cti m w as

wr on g

.

Dr

. S teph en M ech an i ck, a ps y ch i atr i s t

, ev al u ated th e v i cti m ’ s abi l i ty to con s en

t to sex u al ac t ivit y ( E x

h i bi t “ B ”)

. Dr

. M ech an i ck r ev i ewed th e v i cti m ’ s s ch ool a n d m e d i cal r ecor d s
, th e pol i ce r epor

t a nd as s oci ated i n

ter v i ews
, an d Di v i s i on of

F am i l y S er v i ces r ecor d s an d h e per s o n al l y ev al u ated th e

v i cti m i n h er h om

e. Dr

. M ech an i ck con cl

u ded th at t

h e v i cti m
h ad 22q11. 2 d el eti on s y n dr om e, a gen eti c d i s or der t

h at

cau s es dev el opm

en tal del ay s

. D r

. M e c k a

n i ck deter m i n ed t h at

th e v i cti m ’ s “ i n

tel l e c tu al di s abi l i ty s er i ou s l y com pr o m i ses h er abi l i ty to u

n der s tan d an d con s en

t to e nga ging i n s ex

u al

acti v i ty

. ” T h e doctor f

ou n d t h at th e v i cti m “ i s n ot capabl e of

con s en ti n g t o e ng ag i n g i n s ex u al acti v i ty ” an d th at h er

“ ps y ch i atr i c i m

pai r m en t s ar e qu i ckl y

. . . obv i ou s to ev en a

cas u al obs er v er

. ” 2

K UNI TZ ’ S CO NTENTI O NS

I n h i s m oti o n
, K

u n i tz r ai s es th e f

ol l owi n g g r ou

n ds 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.

T h at m y cou n s el f ai l ed to i n v es t as e ( s i c) m

y cas e an d

g av e m e er

r on ou s e ( s i c) i n f

or m at io n i n wh i ch s h e
i n f or m ed m e t h at it w a s bes t f

or m e to pl ea ou

t. A s

w el l as n ot g i v i ng m e a copy of th e ar r es t w ar r an t or

an y th i n g el s e i n m

y cas e.

2 State v. K

unitz

, Del

. Super

, ID No

. 1706010844, D

. I

. 2 8.

6Gr ou n d two: F au l ty i n di ctm en t.

T h e i n di ctm en

t does n ’ t m et ( si c) t

h e el i m en t s ( s ic ) of

t h e ch ar g e f

or

. I was i n di cted on ch ar g e, h owev er th at

ch ar g e to m eet th e el i m en ts ( s ic ) I wou l d n eed to be

i n di cted o n oth er ch ar g es

. P l u s th er e i s n o s i g n atu r e of

t h e ch ai r per s on of th e Gr an d J u

r y

.

Gr ou n d th r ee: I wi s h t o cl ai m actu al i n n ocen t s ( si c) to m

y ch ar g e.

I di d n ot f

or ce m y s el f u pon th e per s on in th i s cas e.

T h u s m y ar r es t an d con

v i cti on ar e of m al i ci ou s act

DI S CUS S I O N

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

u n i tz h as m et t

h e

pr ocedu r al r equ i r em en

ts of S u per i or Cou

r t Cr i m i n al Ru l e 61( i ) b ef

or e i t m ay con s i der

th e m er i ts of h i s pos tcon v i cti on r el i ef cl ai m

. 3 T h i s i s K u n i tz’ s f ir s t m o ti 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 o n e y ear of h i s con v i cti on becom

i n g f i n al

.

T h er ef or 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

t ed i n i n i t i al Ru l e 61 m

oti on
, ar e m et. Non e

of K u n i tz’ s cl ai m s wer e r ai sed at th e pl ea, s en ten ci n g
, or on di r ect appeal

. T h er ef or e,

th ey ar e b a r r e d b y R u l e 61( i ) ( 3)

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

o r th e def au l t an d

pr eju d i ce. On l y K

u n i tz’ s f i r s t gr ou n d f or r el i ef i s bas ed on i n ef f ecti v e as si stan ce of

cou n s el ; th er ef

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

h e cl ai m ear l i er

.

H e m akes n o ar g

u m en t f or h i s f ai l u r e to h av e r ai s ed h i s r em ai n i ng t w o c la im s ear l i er

.

T h ey ar e th er ef

or e cl ear l y pr ocedu

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

.

A t th i s poi n

t, Ru l e 61( i ) ( 3) does n ot b ar r el i ef as to K u n i t z’ s f i r s t gr ou n d f or

r el i ef

, p r o v id e d h e d em

o n s tr ates th at h i s cou

n s el was i n ef

f ecti v e an d th at h e was

pr eju d i ced by cou

ns e l’ s a c t i o n s

. T o pr ev ai l on h i s cl ai m of i n ef f ecti v e as si stan ce of

3 B ailey v. State, 588 A

. 2d 1121, 1127 ( Del

. 1991)

.

7cou

n s el

, K u n i t z m u s t m eet t he t w o

- p r o n g t es t of Str ickland v. W as hington

. 4 I n t

h e

con tex t o f a g

u i l ty pl ea ch al l en g e, St r i ckland r equ i r es a def en d an t s h o w: ( 1) th at

cou n s el ' s r epr es en

tati on f el l bel ow an objecti v e stan dar d o f r eas on abl en es s ; an d ( 2) th at

cou n s el ' s acti on s wer e pr eju di ci al to h i m i n th at th 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 o r
, h e w ou l d n ot h av e pl ed g u i l ty an d wou l d h av e i n s i s ted o n g oi n g to

tr i al an d th at th e r es u l t of a t r i al w ou l d h av e been h i s acqu i ttal

. 5 T h e f ai l u r e to es tabl i s h

th at a def

en dan t wou l d no t hav e pl ed g u i l ty an d wou l d h av e p r oceeded t o 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

. 6 I n addi ti on
, Del awar e cou r ts h av e con si s ten

tl y h el d

th at 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 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 an t i a t e t h em or r i s k su

m m ar y

di s m i s s al

. 7 Wh en ex am

i n i n g th e r epr es en

t ati on of cou

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

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

n s el ' s con du ct was

pr of es s i o n al l y r eas on abl e. 8 T h i s s tan dar d i s h i g h l y dem an di n g

. 9 Str ickland m a nd a tes

th at, wh en v i ewi n g cou

n s el ' s r epr es en

tati o n
, th i s Cou

r t m u s t en d eav or to “ el i m

i n ate t h e

di s tor ti n g ef f ects of h i n ds i g h

t. ” 1 0

F ol l o wi n g a com

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

, i t i s abu n d an tl y cl ear th at

K u n i tz h as 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 ti ate h i s cl ai m t

h at h i s attor

n ey

was i n ef f ecti v e. I f

i n d t r i al cou n s el ’ s af f i dav i t, i n con

ju n cti o n w it h t h e r ecor d, m or e

cr edi b l e th at K

u n i tz’ s s el f

- s er v i n g cl ai m s th at h i s cou n s el ’ s r ep r e s en

tati on was

4 466 U. S. 668 (1984)

.

5 I d

. a t 687.

6 Somer ville v. State

, 7 03 A

. 2d 629, 631 ( Del

. 1 997) ( ci t i n g Albur y v

. State

, 551 A

. 2 d 53, 60 ( Del

. 1988) ) ( ci t at i o n s o m

i t t ed)

.

7 See e. g. , Outten v. State

, 720 A

. 2d 547, 557 ( Del

. 1998) ( c i t i n g B oughner v. S

tate

, 1995 W L

466465 a t *1 ( Del

. Supr

. ) )

. 8 A lbur y , 551 A

. 2 d at 59 ( ci

t i n g Str ickland

, 466 U. S. at 689)

. 9 F lamer v. State

, 5 85 A

. 2d 7 36, 754 ( Del

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

or r is on , 477 U. S. 365,

383 (1986) )

. 1 0 Str ickland

, 466 U. S. at 689.

8i n ef

f ecti v e. K u n i tz’ s cou n s el cl ear l y den i es th e al l eg ati on s

.

K u n i tz was f

aci n g th e pos s ib ilit y of twen t y

- f i v e y ear s i n pr i s on h ad h e been

con v i cted. T h e s en

ten ce an d pl ea wer e v er

y r eas on abl e u

n de r al l th e ci r cu

m s tan ces
,

es p eci al l y i n l i g h

t of t h e ov er wh el m i n g ev i d en ce ag ai n s t h i m

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

pl ea, K u n i tz an d h i s attor

n ey di s cu s s ed th e cas e. T h e pl ea bar g ai n w a s cl ear l y

adv an tag eou s to K

u n i tz. Cou n s el was s u cces s f

u l i n n eg oti ati n g a ben ef

i ci al pl ea bar g ai n

wi th th e S tate. Cou

n sel ’ s r epr es en

tati on was cer tai n l y w el l wi th i n th e r an g e r equ i r ed by

Str ickland

. A ddi ti on al l y , wh en K u n i tz en ter ed h i s g u i l t y pl ea, h e s tated h e was s ati s f i ed

wi th def en s e cou n s el ’ s per f

o r 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 c ing e vid e n ce to th e con tr ar y

. 1 1 Con s equ en

tl y , K u n i tz h as f ai l ed to

es t abl i s h t h 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 Str ickland tes t.

E v en as s u m i n g
, a r guendo

, th at cou

n s el ’ s r epr es en

tati on o f K

u n i tz w as s om

eh ow

def i ci en t, Kunit z m

u st s ati sf y th e s econ d pr on g of th e Str ickland tes t

, pr eju di ce. I n

s etti n g f o r 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 d i ce an d s u bs tan ti ate th em or r i s k di s m

i ss al

. 1 2 I n an attem

pt

to s h ow pr eju di ce, K

u n i tz si m p l 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 statem en

ts

ar e i n s u f f i ci en t to es tabl 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 ev i den ce ag ai n s t h i m

.

T h er ef or e, I f i n d K u n i tz’ s g r ou

n ds f or r el i ef ar e m er i tl es s

.

T o th e ex ten

t th at K u n i tz al l eg es h i s pl ea was i n v ol u n t ar y , th e r ecor d con

tr adi cts

s u ch an al l eg ati on

. Wh en addr es s i n g th e qu es ti o n o f wh eth er a p l ea w as con s ti tu ti on al l y

kn owi n g an d v ol

u n tar y , t h e Cou r t l ooks to a pl ea col l oqu

y to deter m i n e i f t h e wai v er of

con s ti tu ti on al r i g h ts was kn owi n g an d v ol

u n tar y

. 1 3 A t t h e g u i l ty

- pl ea h ear i n g
, th e Cou r t

1 1 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) )

.

1 2 Lar s on v. State

, 1995 W L 3 89718, at *2 ( Del

. Supr

. ) ( ci t i n g Y o u nger , 580 A

. 2d 552, 556 ( Del

. 1990) )

. 1 3 Godinez v. M

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

.

9as k ed K

u n i tz wh eth er h e u

n der s tood th e n atu

r e of t h e ch ar g es
, th e con s equ en ces of h i s

pl eadi n g g

u i l ty

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

u i l t y

. T h e Cou

r t as k ed K u n i tz

i f h e u n der s tood h e wou l d wai v e h i s con s ti t u ti o n al r i g h ts i f h e pl ed g

u i l ty i n cl u di n g t

h e

r i g h t to s u ppr es s ev i den ce; 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 sted on t

h e

T r u t h- i n

- S en ten ci n g Gu i l ty P l ea F or

m ( “ Gu i l t y P l ea F or

m ”) ; an d wh eth er h e g av e

tr u t h f u l an s wer s to al l t he qu es ti on s on t h e f o r m

. T h e Cou

r t as ked K u n i tz i f h e h ad

di s cu ss ed th e g

u i l t y pl ea an d i ts con sequ en ces f u l l y wi th h i s attor

n ey

. T h e Cou

r t as ked

K u n i tz i f h e was en

t er i n g i n to th e pl ea as h e was g

u i l ty of th e ch ar g es

. T h e Cou r t al s o

as k ed K u n i tz i f h e was s ati s f

i ed wi th th i s cou

n s el ’ s r epr es en

tatio n. K u n i tz an s wer ed

each of t h es e qu es ti on s af

f i r m ati v el y

. 1 4 A ddi ti on al l y wh en as ked by th e Cou r t i f h e h ad

an y addi ti on al com

m en ts h e s tated: “ I wou l d l i ke to apol og i ze. I ju s t – I d i d som eth i n g

I was n ’ t su

ppos ed to do an d I k

n ow I ’ m g u i l ty f o r i t an d I apol og i ze f

or doi n g i t. I kn ow

I s h ou l dn ’ t h av e. ” 1 5 I f

i n d cou n s el ’ s r epr es en

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

u n i tz’ 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 t y pl ea, K u n i tz si g n ed a Gu i l t

y 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 t i n g

. K u n i t z’ 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 s t i tu

t i on al r i g h ts h e w as 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 ol

u n tar i l y deci ded to pl ead g

u i l ty to th e ch a r g es l i sted i n th e P l ea

A g r eem en

t

. K u n i t z i s bou n d b y t h e s tatem en ts h e m ade on th e s i g n ed Gu i l ty P l ea F or m
,

u n l es s h e pr o v es o t

h er wi s e by cl ear an d con

v i n ci n g ev i den ce. 1 6 I con f i den tl y f i n d th at

K u n i tz en ter ed h i s g

u i l ty pl ea kn owi n g l y an d v ol u n t ar i l y an d th at K

u n i tz’ s g r ou

n ds f or

r el i ef ar e com

pl etel y m er i tl es s

.

T u r n i n g br i ef

l y to K u n i tz’ s r em ai n i n g g r ou

n d s f or r el i ef h e cl ai m s “ f

au l t y

1 4 State v

. K

unitz

, D el

. Super

. , I D No

. 1706010844 ( Dec. 1 3, 2017) T r. at 3- 9.

1 5 I d

. at 9.

1 6 Sommer

ville, 703 A

. 2d at 632.

10i n d i ctm

en t” i n h i s S econ d g r ou

n d. S peci f

i cal l y , h e cl ai m s th at th e i n di ctm en t does n ot

m eet th e el em

en ts an d th at th e “ ch ai r

p er s on of th e g r an d j ur y” f a i l ed to s i g n t

h e

docu m en t. Def en s e Cou n s el di sag r ees wi th t

h i s as s er ti on as s h e f

ou n d n o pr obl em s wi t

h

th e i n di ctm en

t. Con tr ar y to K u n i tz’ s as s er

ti on
, th e i n di ctm en

t was pr oper l y s i g n ed by

th e f or eper s on an d s ecr etar

y of th e g r an d ju

r y ( E x h i b i t “ D”)

. 1 7 K

u n i tz’ s cl ai m i s paten

tl y

u n tr u e.

K u n i tz’ s ar g u m en t th at th e i n di ctm en

t f a ils to m eet th e el em en

ts i s con cl u s or

y

.

T h e l an g u ag e of th e ch ar g e ci ted i n th e i n di ctm en t

, Rape S econ d Deg r ee, m i r r or s t h e

l an g u ag e of 11 Del. C

. § 772( a) ( 1)

. A ccor di n g t o § 772( a) ( 1)

, a per s on i s g u i l ty of Rape

S econ d D eg r ee w he n h e or s h e “ [ i ] n ten ti o n al l y en g ag es i n sex

u al i n ter cou r s e wi t h

an oth er per son an d th e i n ter cou r s e occu r s wi th ou t th e v i ct im ’ s con s en

t. ” 1 8 T h e

i n d i ctm en t al l eg es th at th e def

en dan t “ di d i n ten ti on al l y en g ag e i n sex

u al i n t er cou r s e wi t h

[ n am e r edacted] an d th e i n ter cou r s e occu r r ed wi t h o u t s ai d v i cti m ’ s con s en

t. ” T h e

i n d i ctm en t i n cl u des l an g

u age t hat i n cl u des both el em en ts of th e of

f en s e – s ex

u al

i n t er cou r s e an d l ack of con s en

t. T h i s al l eg ati on f

ai l s to ci te an

y cr edi bl e s u

ppor ti n g

ev i den ce an d i s u

tter l y con cl u s or

y

.

F u r th er m o r e, as s u m i n g ar g u en do th at a def

ect i n th e i n di ctm en

t ex i s ted, K

u n it z

wai v ed an

y def ect o r er r or u pon en tr y of h i s g u i l ty pl ea. 1 9 Ku

n i tz’ s s en ten ce was t

h e

r es u l t o f a pl ea th at h e ex

pl i ci tl y ag r eed to accept. A s wi th G r ou n d o n e, K u n i tz f ai l s to

s tate a g r ou

n d f or r el i ef an d h i s cl ai m s h ou l d be s u m m ar i l y den i ed. 2 0

I n Gr o u n d th r ee K u n i tz cl ai m s actu al i n

n ocen ce. A ccor di n g t o K u n i tz, h e i s n ot

g u i l ty of th e of

f en s e becau s e h e d id not f or ce h i m s el f u

pon th e v i cti m

. H owev er t h e

1 7 State v

. K

unitz

, D el

. Super

, I D No

. 1706010844, D. I

. 28.

1 8 11 Del. C

. § 772( a) ( 1)

. 1 9 C ooper v. State

, 2006 W L 1374676, at * 2 ( Del

. Super

. M ay 19, 2006)

, 2 0 See State v

. R eeder

, 2005 W L 1249041, at *8 ( Del

. Super

. M ay 26, 2005)

.

11ev i den ce ag ai n s t K u n i tz was ov er

whe lm ing no t on l y was h e cau g h t i n th e act by t

h e

v i cti m ’ s m

oth er
, h e adm

i tted to th e pol i ce th at h e com m i tted th e cr i m e an d kn ew i t was

wr on g

. F u

r th er m or e, K u n i tz ackn owl edg ed h i s g

u i l t sev er al ti m es du

r i n g h i s g u i l ty pl ea

col l oqu y

. F i n al l y , i t i s abs o l u

tel y cl ear f

r om D r

. M ech an i ck’ s r epor t th at th e v i cti m was

s o m en tal l y di s abl ed th at s h e was total l y i n capabl e of g i v i n g con s en t t o an y sex u al act,

a f act th at K u n i tz cl ear l y kn ew as evid en ced by h i s ackn owl edg m en t th at h i s acti on s

wer e “ wr o n g

. ” T h er e ar e s i m pl y n o f acts

, oth er th an K

u n i tz’ s s el f

- s er v i n g cl ai m s
, th at

s u ppor t th e n oti o n th at K

u n i t z i s in n ocen t o f th e ch ar g es

. T o th e con tr ar y , th e f acts

ov er wh el m i n g l y s u ppor t th e con cl u s i on th at h e i s
, i n f act, g u i l ty

.

CO NCLUS I O N

I f i n d th at K u n i tz’ s cou n s el r epr es en

ted h i m i n a com

peten t an d ef f ecti v e m an

n er

a nd t h at K

u n i t z h as f

ai l ed to dem

on s tr ate an

y pr eju d i ce s tem

m i n g f r o m t he

r epr e s e nt ati o n

. I al s o f i n d th at K

u n i tz’ s g u i l ty pl ea was en

ter ed kn owi 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 K u n i t z’ s m oti o n f or p os tcon

v i cti on r el i ef

as pr o cedu

r al l y bar r ed an d com

pl etel y m er i tl es s pu

r su an t to S u per i or Cou

r t Cr i m i n al

Ru l e 61( i ) ( 3)

.

/s / A n dr ea M

. F r eu d

Com m i s s i on er

12