Court Opinion

ID: 9942342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 21:02:58.788097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:58.978753
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                       )
                                         )
         v.                              )   I.D. # 0107017049
                                         )
AKBAR HASSAN-EL,                         )
                                         )
              Defendant.                 )

                           Submitted: December 18, 2023
                            Decided: February 20, 2024

           ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
    DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION AND MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS

       Upon consideration of Defendant Akbar Hassan-El’s (“Hassan-El”) Motion

for Discovery and Inspection1 (the “Discovery Motion”) and Motion for Transcripts2

(the “Transcripts Motion”), the Court finds the following:

       1.     Following his retrial in May, 2005, a jury found Hassan-El guilty of

Murder in the First Degree, Murder in the Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm

During the Commission of a Felony, Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree, and

Conspiracy in the Second Degree.3 On September 30, 2005, he was sentenced to

life in prison on the felony murder conviction, and to 45 years at Level V on the

remaining convictions.4 The Supreme Court affirmed Hassan-El’s convictions and

1
  D.I. 230.
2
  D.I. 231.
3
  D.I. 143.
4
  D.I. 158.
sentences on direct appeal.5        This Court provided Hassan-El with copies of

transcripts of the trial proceedings in connection with his direct appeal.6

       2.        Subsequently, Hassan-El has filed at least two motions for

postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The first was denied

in 2008 and the second was denied on January 27, 2010 (the “2010 Order”). 7 Both

were affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court.8

       3.        Hassan-El filed a motion for transcripts in connection with his appeal

of the 2010 Order.9 That motion was denied because it was out of time and otherwise

procedurally barred, and therefore, Hassan-El provided no valid need for the

transcripts.10

       4.        Pending are Hassan-El’s two recently filed motions: the Discovery

Motion, pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 16, which seeks a broad array of

materials without further explanation or comment; and the Transcripts Motion,

which seeks copies of transcripts of every court proceeding before, during, and after

both trials.

5
  Hassan-El v. State, 911 A.2d 685 (Del. 2006).
6
  See D.I. 178.
7
  State v. Hassan-El, 2008 WL 3271229 (Del. Super. July 31, 2008); State v. Hassan-El, 2010
WL 359697 (Del. Super. Jan. 27, 2010).
8
  Hassan-El v. State, 966 A.2d 347 (Table), 2009 WL 234625 (Del. Feb. 2, 2009); Hassan-El v.
State, 5 A.3d 630 (Table), 2010 WL 3673003 (Del. Sept. 21, 2010).
9
  D.I. 225.
10
   Id.

                                              2
       5.     The Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for additional

discovery in postconviction proceedings. “Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 applies

to pre-trial discovery and does not afford relief to a Defendant post-sentencing.”11

“Nowhere in Rule 16 does the duty to provide discovery continue after the

conviction has become final.”12

       6.     However, this Court “possesses ‘inherent authority under Rule 61 in the

exercise of its discretion to grant particularized discovery for good cause shown.’”13

In the postconviction stage, a movant bears a heavier burden to establish “good

cause” for discovery.14 “Especially at the postconviction stage, ‘petitioners are not

entitled to go on a fishing expedition through the government’s files in hopes of

finding some damaging evidence.’”15

       7.     Similarly, there is no absolute right to free transcripts in the

postconviction stage.16 “The Constitution requires that materials such as transcripts

are provided only after judicial certification that they are necessary to decide non-

frivolous issues pending in a case.”17 Thus, this Court has discretion under Criminal

11
   State v. Daniels, 2016 WL 6610319, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 14, 2016).
12
   State v. Schultz, 2015 WL 4739503, at *2 (Del. Super. July 31, 2015).
13
   Cabrera v. State, 173 A.3d 1012, 1032 (Del. 2017) (quoting Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186,
1197 (Del. 1996)).
14
   Id. at 1033.
15
   Id. (quoting State v. Jackson 2006 WL 1229684, at *2 (Del. Super. May 3, 2006)).
16
   State v. Demby, 2007 WL 214411, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 25, 2007).
17
   State v. Russell, 2019 WL 6248340, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 15, 2019) (citation omitted).

                                              3
Rule 61(d)(4) to order that transcripts be provided at State expense when a defendant

has shown “good cause” and stated a “particularized need” for the transcripts.18

          8.      The Discovery Motion lists 16 categories of documents and

information Hassen-El seeks in discovery, including statements of confidential

informants, his prior criminal record, and statements made by persons who will

testify at trial. While the Discovery Motion identifies what materials Hassen-El

wants, he provides no factual or legal basis supporting a need for these materials.

          9.      The Transcripts Motion is likewise deficient.     Hassan-El requests

copies of transcripts of all proceedings in this Court. He asserts that transcripts were

prepared for his counsel in connection with his direct appeal and that he requested a

copy of the transcripts from the Office of the Public Defender, which request has

been denied. He asserts that he needs all of these transcripts to prepare a pro se

motion for postconviction relief. Hassen-El does not state the grounds for any such

motion, but baldly states that he needs the transcripts “to review the merits of the

defendant’s case.”

          10.     Hassan-El’s motions must be denied. First, Hassen-El has already filed

two postconviction motions, which have been denied.              Under Rule 61(d)(2),

subsequent motions “shall be summarily dismissed” unless the defendant pleads

with particularity that he is “actually innocent” or he pleads with particularity a new

18
     Id.; Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4).

                                              4
rule of constitutional law that applies to his case which renders his conviction

invalid. Hassen-El has not stated any ground on which he would be permitted to

pursue a third postconviction motion. Thus, his desire to file another postconviction

motion is not a sufficient ground on which to grant the motions.

      11.    Second, Hassen-El failed to provide any factual or legal support for his

motions. Thus, he has failed to show good cause or a particularized need for the

transcripts or any discovery. Absent a showing of good cause and particularized

need for these materials, the Court will not exercise its discretion to grant Hassan-

El’s requests. Accordingly, the Discovery Motion and the Transcripts Motion are

DENIED.

February 20, 2024

                                             /s/Kathleen M. Miller
                                             The Honorable Kathleen M. Miller

Original to prothonotary
Andrew Witherell, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Defense Services
Akbar Hassen-El SBI# 00417270

                                         5