Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190926_0000868.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-15 09:04:03
Document Index: 262465419

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Owens v. Dematteis
Owens v. Dematteis
ELLIOTT OWENS, Petitioner,
ANDREW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is an Application For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Elliott Owens. (D.I. 2) The State filed an Answer in opposition, to which Petitioner filed a Reply. (D.I. 9; D.I. 16) For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Petition and deny the relief requested.
On February 4, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of delivery of cocaine, in exchange for which the State entered a nolle prosequi on a charge of delivery of cocaine and wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony. (D.I. 9 at 1) The Superior Court immediately sentenced Petitioner to fifteen years at Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for six months at Level IV followed by one year of Level III probation. (D.I. 9 at 2) Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
On September, 2014, Delaware's Office of Defense Services ("OPD") filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61 motion") on Petitioner's behalf. The Superior Court denied the motion on April 20, 2015, and denied his motion for reargument on June 17, 2015. (D.I. 8 at 2); see State v. Anderson et al., 2015 WL 2067158 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 20, 2015); State v. Banks, 2015 WL 4400130 (Del. Super. Ct. June 17, 2015). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision on December 9, 2015. (D.I. 8 at 2); see Banks v. State, 129 A.3d 881 (Table), 2015 WL 8481972 (Del. Dec. 9, 2015).
On September 21, 2016, the OPD filed a § 2254 Petition on Petitioner's behalf, asserting that Petitioner's lack of knowledge of an evidence scandal at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") was material to his decision to plead guilty and, therefore, his guilty plea was involuntary pursuant to Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). (D.I. 2) Petitioner also argues that the Delaware Supreme Court made unreasonable findings of fact during his post-conviction appeal regarding OCME misconduct. The State filed an Answer asserting that the Petition should be dismissed as meritless. (D.I. 9) Petitioner filed a Reply arguing that the Petition warrants habeas relief. (D.I. 16)
When a state's highest court has adjudicated a federal habeas claim on the merits, the federal court must review the claim under the deferential standard contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) if the state court decision finally resolves the claim on the basis of its substance, rather than on a procedural or some other ground. See Thomas v. Horn, 570 F.3d 105, 115 (3d Cir. 2009). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal habeas relief may only be granted if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, " or the state court's decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence adduced in the trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); Appel v. Horn, 250 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2001). This deferential standard of § 2254(d) applies even "when a state court's order is unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the reasons relief has been denied." As recently explained by the Supreme Court, "it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-100 (2011).
In Claim One, Petitioner contends that the Delaware Supreme Court did not comply with the Brady v. United States requirement that "all of the relevant circumstances surrounding" the plea must be considered when assessing if his plea was voluntary. (D.I. 7 at 20) He asserts that the Delaware Supreme Court erred by focusing on his admission of guilt during the plea colloquy, contending that a "defendant's recitals on the record at the time he entered his guilty plea do not foreclose proof at a later time that those themselves were involuntary, " and "the assessment of such proof does not involve any question of guilt or innocence." (D.I. 7 at 20)
Specifically, he alleges,