Court Opinion

ID: 9783724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:04:46.257413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:45.393151
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                           )
                                             )
                                             ) ID No. 0909018475 A/B
                                             )
        v.                                   )
                                             )
MICHAEL T. WASHINGTON,                       )
                                             )
              Defendant,                     )
                                             )

                            Submitted: August 30, 20231
                             Decided: August 30, 2023

    Upon Defendant’s Motion for Certification and Acceptance of an Interlocutory
                                      Appeal
                                   DENIED.

                                     ORDER

Carolyn Hake, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

Michael Washington, James T. Vaugh Correctional Center, 1181 Paddock Road,
Smyrna, DE, pro se.

WHARTON, J.

1
   Although the Motion was filed on August 8, 2023, this Court was without
jurisdiction to hear it due to Washington’s appeal of its denial of his motion to
compel. On August 30, 2023, the Delaware Supreme Court sent a certified copy of
its Order of August 14, 2023 dismissing Washington’s appeal to the Clerk of this
Court.
      This 30th day of August, 2023, having considered Michael T. Washington’s

(“Washington”) Motion for Certification of and Acceptance of an Interlocutory

Appeal,2 it appears to the Court that:

      1.      In November, 2010, Washington was convicted by a Superior Court

jury of two counts of each of Manslaughter and Possession of a Firearm During the

Commission of a Felony (“PFDCF”) in the shooting deaths of Leighton Francis and

Amin Guy, and, in a subsequent bench trial, an additional severed count of

Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”).3 Washington was

sentenced on February 11, 2011, to eighty-six years of imprisonment at Level V,

suspended after sixty-four years for decreasing levels of supervision.4

      2.     Washington appealed his convictions to the Delaware Supreme Court.

He raised two issues on appeal: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct when she

referred to a cell phone call during her opening statement, and (2) the State’s ballistic

expert testified at trial, contrary to his report, that bullet fragments recovered in the

700 block of E. 10th Street “matched” those recovered from the victim’s bodies.5

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Washington’s convictions.6

2
  D.I. 226.
3
  Washington v. State, 2011 WL 4908250, at *1 (Del. 2011).
4
  Id.
5
  Id., at *3-4.
6
  Id.

                                           2
      3.     On March 7, 2012, Washington filed a timely pro se motion for

postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 61.7 Later, Washington filed an Amended

Motion for Postconviction Relief on August 7, 2012.8 Then, on February 25, 2013,

Washington filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.9 After supplementation of

the record by trial counsel, appointment of postconviction counsel, the State’s

response, and postconviction counsel’s motion to withdraw, Washington filed

amendments to his pro se motion for postconviction relief in March 2016.10

Ultimately, Washington’s postconviction relief motion was denied by the Superior

Court.11 The Supreme Court affirmed that decision.12

      4.     On May 24, 2017, Washington filed a timely petition for federal habeas

relief.13 In April of 2019, Washington moved to stay the federal proceedings to

“argue the newly discovered evidence in the Superior Court in order to properly

exhaust his remedies and avoid any procedural issue[s]… in this district court.”14

The District Court granted his motion and stayed the matter.15 On August 30, 2019,

Washington filed his second pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief and a Motion

7
  D.I. 64.
8
  D.I. 77.
9
  D.I. 95.
10
   D.I. 139.
11
   State v. Washington, 2016 WL 6248462 (Del. Super. 2016).
12
   Washington v. State, 2017 WL 1573119 (Del. 2017).
13
   State’s Resp. to Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 4, D. I. 182.
14
   Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 9, D.I. 173.
15
   Id.

                                          3
for Appointment of Counsel.16 On September 9, 2019, the Court directed the

appointment of counsel.17 Then, through counsel, Washington filed an amended

second motion on April 28, 2020.18 The State filed its Response on March 1, 2021.19

Next, postconviction counsel sought, and was granted a stay of his reply until the

Delaware Supreme Court issued its opinion in Purnell v. State.20 That opinion was

issued on June 17, 2021. Washington filed reply to the State’s response on July 27,

2021.21 The State responded to Washington’s reply on Aug. 26, 2021.22

      5.     In his second postconviction relief motion, Washington contended he

was entitled to postconviction relief because newly discovered evidence created a

strong inference that he was “actually innocent.” He argued three pieces of new

evidence existed that undermined confidence in the result of his trial. First, inmate

witness Christopher Waterman (“Waterman”) recanted his testimony.23 Second,

inmate witness Isaiah Fields (“Fields”) was the beneficiary of a tacit sentence

reduction agreement that was not disclosed to the defense, resulting in a Brady

violation.24 Third, the State’s expert ballistics witness, Forensic Firearms Examiner

16
   Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief, D.I. 163, 164.
17
   D.I. 165.
18
   Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, D.I. 173.
19
   State’s Resp. to Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, D.I.
20
   254 A.3d 1053 (Del. 2021).
21
   Def.’s Second Mot. For Postconviction Relief Reply to State’s Resp., D.I. 197.
22
   State’s Resp. to Def.’s Reply Brief, D.I. 199.
23
   Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 12, D.I, 173.
24
   Id.

                                         4
Carl Rone (“Rone”) misled the jury by misrepresenting his credentials and his

identification methods have been shown to be “subjective and unreliable.”25 The

State argued Washington was procedurally barred from asserting a claim under Rule

61 because: (1) it was untimely; (2) it was a successive motion; and (3) his claims

related to Fields and Rhone were not raised on direct appeal or in his first

postconviction relief motion.26 Additionally, the State argued that Washington had

failed to overcome the bars to relief erected by Rule 61 because his claims were

neither newly discovered, nor did they establish actual innocence.27

      6.     On November 9, 2021, this Court denied Washington’s Second

postconviction relief motion.28 This Court held that Washington’s motion was

procedurally barred under Rule 61 because it was untimely, successive, and raised

grounds not asserted previously. Further, the Court held that Washington failed to

overcome those bars because the evidence he produced was either not newly

discovered, failed to establish actual innocence, or both.29 The Delaware Supreme

Court affirmed this Court on April 7, 2022.30

25
   Id.
26
   State’s Resp. to Def.’s Second Mot. for Postconviction Relief, at 11-15, D.I. 182.
27
   Id., at 9.
28
   State v. Washington, 2021 WL 5232259 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2021).
29
   Id.
30
   Washington v. State, 2022 WL 1041267 (Del. 2022).

                                         5
      7.    Washington then asked this Court to set aside its judgment denying his

second postconviction relief motion and grant him a new trial. He moved under

Superior Court Civil Rules 60(b)(1), (3) and (6) and 55(c).31 Rules 60(b)(1), (3) and

(6) permit relief from a judgment due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable

neglect, fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party, or any

other reason justifying relief. Rule 55(c) provides for relief from default judgments.

A second motion, captioned Motion to Amend and Supplement appeared only to

seek to amend the motion to include a reference to Superior Court Criminal Rule

57(d). That rule allows the application of an appropriate civil rule when no criminal

rule applies. Treating the motion as one for postconviction relief under Rule 61, this

Court summarily dismissed it as barred for substantially the same reasons it

determined that his previous second Rule 61 motion was barred.32 That decision

was affirmed on September 6, 2022.33

      8.     On May 25, 2023, Washington moved to compel the various lawyers

who had represented him in the course of this now closed litigation to produce their

files to him.34 The Court ascertained that Patrick J. Collins, Esquire, as the last

attorney to represent Washington, was the only lawyer in possession of

31
   D.I. 205.
32
   State v. Washington, 2022 WL 1656008, at *2 (Del. Super. May 24, 2022).
33
   Washington v. State, 2022 WL 4088664 (Del. Sept. 6, 2022).
34
   D.I. 214.

                                          6
Washington’s file.35 It also learned that Mr. Collins, over the years, had sent

Washington substantially all of what he was seeking.36 The Court noted that

Washington had nothing pending before the Court, and had exhausted his

postconviction relief remedies in the Superior Court.37 Thus, the Court considered

the matter an attorney/client dispute unsuited for Court intervention and denied the

motion.38

      9.    Washington appealed that decision. On August 14, 2023, the Delaware

Supreme Court entered an order dismissing his appeal because it had no jurisdiction

to consider it as an interlocutory appeal.39

      10. Perhaps anticipating the Supreme Court’s action, Washington moved for

certification of an interlocutory appeal on August 8th.40 In the motion, he asserts he

has met the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42, without elaboration, except to

repeat his claim before this Court that Mr. Collins is withholding exculpatory

evidence that can show his innocence.41

      11.    After considering the motion, the Court finds that its order denying

Washington’s Motion to Compel the production of his file does not determine a

35
   D.I. 219.
35
   D.I. 222.
37
   D.I. 219.
38
   Id.
39
   Washington v. State, 2023 WL 5218143 (Del. Aug. 14, 2023).
40
   D.I. 226.
41
   Id.

                                           7
substantial issue of material importance that merits appellate review before a final

judgment, and denies the application. In making this determination, the Court has

considered the criteria of Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(iii) even though Washington

did not present argument directed specifically to any of them, and concluded as

follows as to each criterion:

         a.   Rule 42(b)(iii)(A). The Court finds that the interlocutory order does not

contain a question of law resolved for the first time in this State. Whether the Court

is required to consider a motion to compel when there is no underlying matter

pending before the court is not a question of law resolved for the first time in this

State.

         b.    Rule 42(b)(iii)(B). Washington has not pointed the Court to any

conflicting decisions of trial courts on this issue, nor is the Court aware of any.

         c.    Rule 42(b)(iii)(C).    The question of law does not relate to the

constitutionality, construction, or application of a statute of this State.

         d.    Rule 42(b)(iii)(D).    The interlocutory order has not sustained the

controverted jurisdiction of this Court.

         e.    Rule 42(b)(iii)(E). The interlocutory order has not reversed or set aside

a prior decision of the trial court, a jury, or administrative agency from which an

appeal was taken to the trial court which had decided a significant issue, and a review

                                            8
of the interlocutory order would not terminate the litigation, substantially reduce

further litigation, or otherwise serve considerations of justice.

       f.     Rule 42(b)(iii)(F). The interlocutory order did not vacate or open an

order of the trial court.

       g.     Rule 42(b)(iii)(G). Review of the interlocutory order would not

terminate the litigation.

       h.     Rule 42(b)(iii)(H). Review of the interlocutory order would not serve

considerations of justice.

       THEREFORE,            Defendant   Michael    T.   Washington’s   Motion   for

Certification and Acceptance of Interlocutory Appeal to the Supreme Court in with

Rule 42 of that Court is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      /s/ Ferris W. Wharton
                                                       Ferris W. Wharton, J.

                                           9