Court Opinion

ID: 9893520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 16:04:13.940678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:25.737193
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE                          )
                                           )
      v.                                   )        ID# 1906003541 A&B
                                           )
JEFFREY CAMPBELL,                          )
                                           )
             Defendant.                    )

                        Date Submitted: September 15, 2023
                         Date Decided: October 26, 2023

                                       ORDER

      Upon consideration of Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief1

and Appointed Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel;2 Superior Court Criminal

Rule 61; the facts, arguments, and legal authorities set forth in the Motions; statutory

and decisional law; and the record in this case, it appears that:

      1)     On August 5, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment, charging

Defendant with: (1) Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child; (2)

Sexual Solicitation of a Child; and (3) ten counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.3

      2)     On January 22, 2020, Defendant pled guilty to Sex Offender Unlawful

Sexual Conduct Against a Child and three counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.4

The plea offer also included Defendant’s violation of probation pending in Sussex

1
  D.I. 28. (Docket Item numbers are from ID No. 1906003541A.)
2
  D.I. 35.
3
  D.I. 2.
4
  D.I. 16.
County for the offenses Sexual Exploitation of a Child and Attempted Sexual

Solicitation.5

      3)      On July 9, 2021, the Court sentenced Defendant to 16 years of

unsuspended Level V time.6

      4)      Mr. Campbell filed a timely direct appeal. On March 8, 2022, the

Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence.7

      5)      On May 17, 2022, Defendant filed a timely pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief and Motion for Appointment of Counsel.8 On March 1, 2023,

the Office of Conflicts Counsel confirmed that Kimberly A. Price and Patrick J.

Collins, of Collins & Price, were appointed as counsel for Defendant (“Rule 61

Counsel”).9

      6)      On August 1, 2023, Rule 61 Counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw, a

Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion, and an appendix pursuant to Rule

61(e)(6).10 Rule 61 Counsel informed the Court that, after a thorough review of the

record, Defendant’s claims lacked merit and there were no additional meritorious

5
    Id. The Court deferred sentencing and ordered a pre-sentence investigation
(“PSI”). Id.
6
   D.I. 23. The delay in time between the plea and sentencing was due to the PSI and
the fact that trial counsel, on behalf of Defendant, requested to schedule Defendant
for sentencing in person rather than over videophone. (D.I. 19, D.I.20).
7
  Campbell v. State, 2022 WL 678001 (Del. Mar. 8, 2022).
8
  D.I. 28, D.I. 29.
9
  D.I. 32.
10
   D.I. 35.
                                         2
claims.11 Rule 61 Counsel indicated that they transmitted a copy of the filing to

Defendant and informed Defendant that Defendant had thirty days to file a

response.12

      7)      As of this date, Defendant has not responded to Rule 61 Counsel’s

Motion to Withdraw.

                                     ANALYSIS

      8)      Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(6), postconviction

counsel has an obligation to assist the movant in presenting any substantial ground

for relief.13 If counsel identifies any substantial ground for relief, counsel can file

an amended motion to include those grounds.14 Conversely, if counsel “considers

the movant’s claim to be so lacking in merit that counsel cannot ethically advocate

it, and counsel is not aware of any other substantial ground for relief available to the

movant, counsel may move to withdraw.”15 If counsel moves to withdraw, they must

explain the factual and legal basis for their opinion and provide notice to the movant,

who may respond within thirty days of service, unless the court grants an extension

of this deadline.16

11
   D.I. 35; Mot. Withdraw as Counsel.
12
   Id. See also Letter to Judge Adams from Kimberly A. Price dated August 1, 2023.
13
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(6).
14
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(6).
15
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(7).
16
   Id.
                                           3
      9)      Here, Rule 61 Counsel concluded that Defendant’s claims lacked

sufficient merit to the point that they could not ethically advocate Defendant’s

position, or any other possible claim.17 On this basis, Rule 61 Counsel moved to

withdraw.18

      10)     The deadline for Defendant to respond to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to

Withdraw was September 15, 2023. As of the date of this order, Defendant has not

responded to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw.

      11)     In the Motion to Withdraw, Rule 61 Counsel engaged in a detailed

analysis of Defendant’s claims before concluding that they were devoid of merit.19

Rule 61 Counsel also considered wither there were any other meritorious claims for

postconviction relief and could not find any. Defendant has elected to not contest

Rule 61 Counsel’s position on his Motion for Postconviction Relief. Because

Defendant has failed to timely respond to Rule 61 Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw,

Defendant is limited to presenting the claims he made in his pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief. The Court will not consider any additional claims Defendant

made in his Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 17, 2022.

      12)     With respect to Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, Superior

Court Criminal Rule 61(a) states such motions must be based on a sufficient factual

17
   Mot. Withdraw; D.I. 35.
18
   Id.
19
   See generally Mot. Withdraw.
                                          4
or legal basis.20 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(b)(2) requires that postconviction

motions “specify all grounds for relief which are available to the movant . . . and

shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus

specified.”21 “[F]or a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to prevail, the

defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them

or risk summary dismissal.”22 If the motion clearly shows that the movant is not

entitled to relief, the court may summarily dismiss it.23

      13)    After a review of the Motion for Postconviction Relief and Motion to

Withdraw, in addition to the applicable legal authorities, it is evident that

Defendant’s grounds for relief do not have merit. Defendant claims defense counsel

was ineffective for the for leaving his position with the Office of Defense Services

and was not fully invested in his sentencing hearing.24

      14)    The Court finds that this claim lacks merit. Mr. Campbell fails to

provide any specifics as to how trial counsel’s performance was deficient at

sentencing, or at any other time. He does not attempt to collaterally attack the guilty

plea or the sentencing. Attorneys change positions frequently – just because an

20
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a).
21
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(b)(2).
22
   Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1996).
23
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).
24
   D.I. 28.
                                          5
attorney leaves his or her current position does not mean their performance in the

matter was ineffective.

        15)   Here, it is apparent that trial counsel secured a mitigation report on

behalf of Mr. Campbell to present at sentencing. This report was also referenced in

the pre-sentence investigation report.        After reviewing the transcript of the

sentencing hearing, the Court is satisfied that trial counsel was prepared and fully

invested in Mr. Campbell’s sentencing.25 The Court, therefore, will enter an Order

for its summary dismissal.26

        NOW THEREFORE, Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and

Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY

DISMISSED.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                               /s/ Meghan A. Adams
                                               Judge Meghan A. Adams
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Office of Conflicts Counsel
      Erik Towne, Deputy Attorney General
      Kimberly A. Price, Esquire
      Patrick J. Collins, Esquire
      Kevin O’Connell, Esquire
      Andrew J. Meyer, Esquire
      Jeffrey Campbell, pro se

25
     Appendix to Mot. Withdraw; D.I. 36 at A62-A70.
26
     Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).
                                          6