Title: Drummond v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 204, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JESSE J. DRUMMOND,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 204, 2002 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County, in S00- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
01-0555-0557, 0559-0564,  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
0567-0570. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 0001010398 
 
Submitted: April 29, 2002 
Decided: 
July 2, 2002  
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd day of July 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jesse J. Drummond, has appealed from the 
Superior Court’s denial of Drummond’s motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the 
ground that it is manifest on the face of Drummond’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 (2) 
In August 2000, Drummond was found guilty by a Sussex 
County Superior Court jury of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with 
Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Maintaining a Vehicle, Possession of Drug 
Paraphernalia, Resisting Arrest, and eight motor vehicle offenses.  
Drummond’s convictions were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal.1  By 
order dated April 1, 2002, the Superior Court denied Drummond’s motion 
for postconviction relief.2  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
At trial, Delaware State Police Officer John L. Evans, Jr., 
testified that on January 13, 2000, at approximately 2:00 a.m., he stopped 
Drummond for speeding on Route 113 near Millsboro in Sussex County.  
Officer Evans testified that, during the stop and while his back was turned, 
Drummond apparently threw a pill bottle containing 14 grams of crack 
cocaine from his vehicle3 and then fled, leading the police on a high-speed 
chase that ended in Millsboro.  Drummond was taken into custody and 
transported to Troop 4 in Georgetown where Officer Evans read Drummond 
his Miranda rights.   According to Officer Evans, Drummond then confessed 
                                          
 
1 Drummond v. State, 2001 WL 138503 (Del. Supr.). 
2 State v. Drummond, 2002 WL 524283 (Del. Super.) 
3 Officer Evans testified at trial that during the stop, he heard a “rattling type of click.”  
When he looked on the ground, he found a pill bottle “that obviously had come from 
[Drummond’s] vehicle.”  Trial Tr., Aug. 16, 2000, at 21-22. 
 
3
that he purchased the crack cocaine for $150.00, and that he threw the pill 
bottle out of his car window during the stop.   
(4) 
At trial, Drummond testified that he did not have the pill bottle 
of cocaine in his possession, and that he did not throw it from his vehicle.  
Drummond also denied making any such confession to Officer Evans. 
(5) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Drummond argues, as he did in 
his postconviction motion, that his trial counsel was ineffective.  To prevail 
on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Drummond must show that 
(i) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of 
reasonableness, and (ii) the deficiencies in counsel’s representation caused 
him actual prejudice.4  Prejudice is defined as “a reasonable probability that, 
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would 
have been different.”5 
(6) 
According to Drummond, his trial counsel was ineffective when 
he failed to move to suppress Drummond’s alleged confession.  In support of 
his claim, Drummond contends that the State was required to produce a 
signed written waiver of his Miranda rights to prove that he confessed.  
                                          
 
4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 694 (1984). 
5 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996) (quoting Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 
736, 753-54 (Del. 1990)). 
 
4
Drummond maintains that the State did not, and could not, produce the 
written Miranda waiver, because he never confessed.     
(7) 
Drummond provides no authority that a written waiver form is 
required to properly waive one’s Miranda rights or to prove that a defendant 
confessed.  Indeed, contrary to Drummond’s contention, “[t]he absence of an 
express waiver does not necessarily render a confession inadmissible; other 
surrounding circumstances can show that a defendant knew of his right and 
intelligently waived them.”6  Drummond’s counsel was not ineffective in 
failing to file a motion to suppress on the basis that the State did not produce 
a written Miranda waiver.   
(8) 
According to Drummond, his counsel’s cross-examination of 
Officer Evans was ineffective because it focused solely, and thus wrongly, 
on Officer Evans’ admission that he did not see Drummond throw the pill 
bottle from the car.  Drummond contends that his counsel should have 
elicited from Officer Evans the possibility that the pill bottle was already 
lying on the ground prior to the stop.  In view of the overwhelming evidence 
of Drummond’s guilt, however, including his confession and his flight from 
the crime scene, Drummond cannot establish actual prejudice from his trial 
                                          
 
6 Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 200 (Del. 1980) (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 
U.S. 369 (1979)). 
 
5
counsel’s failure to more thoroughly cross-examine Officer Evans on his 
observations during the stop. 
(9) 
It is manifest on the face of Drummond’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit.  The issues raised are clearly controlled by settled 
Delaware law.  To the extent the issues on appeal implicate the exercise of 
judicial discretion, there was no abuse of discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice