- 1

-

IN THE SUPERIOR COUR T OF THE STATE OF DE LAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE, ) )

v. ) ID No s . 1 703004263 and 1703 01 5343 ) Cr. A. Nos. I N1 6

- 11

- 1065 , etc. BRANDON BROWN, ) Defendant. )

Submitted: J uly 31
, 20 20 Decided: September 9
, 20 20

ORDER
Upon Defendant, Brandon Brown ’s
, Motion for Postconviction Relief, D ENIE D

.

This 9 th day of September , 20 20 , upon consideration of the Defendant

Brandon Brown ’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief (D.I. 32) 1 and the

amendments thereto
, the State’s response, the Commissioner’s Report and

Recommendation that Mr. Brown ’ s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief should

be D ENIED
, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In August of 2017, a grand jury returned two differ ent indictments
against Brandon Brown (and some co

- defendants) charging him multiple counts of

1 Because there are multiple Uniform Case Numbers assigned to this matter, the Court, for simplicity sake, uses only the docket entry assignments made in Case Number 1703004263.- 2

-

burglary, aggravated menacing, theft, shoplifiting and related charges stemming
from a multitude of offenses occurred in January, February, and March of 2017. 2

(2) On February 27, 2018, Mr. Brown pleaded guilty to six those charges
(five from the indictments, one by new information.) 3 His sentencing occurred in
June, 2018, after the State filed a habitual criminal petition. 4 Mr. Brown was
sentenced to an agg regate of 25 years of Level V incarceration, suspended after
serving 12 years (per the provisions of 11 Del. C. § 4214(c)), for decreasing levels
of quasi

- incarceration and probation. 5

(3) Mr. Brown filed no direct appeal from his convictions or sentence, but
did previously file an unsuccessful pro se application of sentence reduction. 6

(4) In J une 201 9 , Mr. Brown f iled a timely pro se M otion for

Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 7

2 Indictment, State v. Brandon Brown, ID No. 1703004263 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017) (D.I. 2); Indictment, State v. Brandon Brown, ID No. 1703015343 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017) (D.I. 2).

3 Plea Agreement and TIS Guilty Plea Form, State v. Brandon Brown, ID No s . 1703004263 , etc. (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017) (D.I. 2 4 )

.

4 D.I. 2 6 and 27

.

5 Sentencing Order, State v. Brandon Brown, ID No s . 1703004263 , etc. (Del. Super. Ct. June 29 , 201 8 ) (D.I. 2 9 )

.

6 D.I. 30 and 3 1

.

7 D.I. 36.- 3

-

(5) After expansion of the record and the State’s response, that motion was referred to Superior Court Commissioner Janine M. Salomone i n accordance with

10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and reco mmendations for its disposition.
(6) The Commissioner docketed her Report and Recommendation on

J uly 31, 20 20

. 8 The Commissioner recommended that Mr. Brown ’ s Motion for

Postconviction Relief be denied

. 9

(7) “Within ten d ays after filing of a Commissioner’s proposed findings of
fact and recommendations . . . any party may serve and file written objections.” 10

Neither Mr. Brown nor the State filed an “objection” to the Commissioner’s Report

under Criminal Rule 62(a)(5)(ii).
(8) The Court accepts, in whole, the findings of fact and recommendations
made by the Commissioner. 11 After a thorough review of the record in this case, the
Court finds there is no constitutional or legal basis to doubt the validity of

Mr. Brown ’s conviction ; his guilty plea was knowi ng, voluntary, and intelligent.

Nor is there a doubt that Mr. Brown ’s counsel was wholly effective when

8 D.I. 4 6

.

9 State v. Brown , 20 20 WL 4 38357 4 (Del. Super. Ct. J uly 3 1 , 20 20 ).

10 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62(a)(5)(ii).

11 Id. at 62(a)(5)(iv).- 4

-

investigating and evaluating his case for potential defenses , when challenging and
litigating the issu es that counsel had a good faith basis to believe had merit
, when
negotiating a plea resolution

— which included downgrading and re solution of eve n

the unindicted charges M r. Brown was then facing

— and when assisting Mr. Brown

w hile entering his guilty plea

. Counsel also thoroughly prepared for and advocated
during Mr. Brown ’s sentencing. In short, it plainly appears from the motion and the
record of prior proceedings that Mr. Brown is not entitled to postconviction relief.

NOW THEREFORE , after careful and de novo review of the record in this

case , and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation

of J uly 31 , 2020, Mr. Brown ’ s Motion for Postconviction Relief is D ENIE D

.
SO ORDERED this 9 th day of September , 20 20

.
/s/ Paul R. Wallace

_____________________________________ Paul R. Wallace, Judge Original to Prothonotary

cc: Hon. Janine M. Salomone Kelly H. Sheridan , Deputy Attorney General Eugene J. Maurer, Jr., Esquire Brandon Brown , pro se