Court Opinion

ID: 9772237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:11:39.334581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:28.582007
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                                )
                                                  )
                                                  )
          v.                                      )      I.D. No.      2201007430
                                                  )
                                                  )
WILLIAM DOUTY,                                    )
                                                  )
               Defendant.                         )

                                         ORDER

                              Submitted: August 11, 2023
                               Decided: August 28, 2023

    Upon Consideration of the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation that
         Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief Should be Denied,
                                 ADOPTED.

Jenna R. Milecki, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for the State.

William J. Douty, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution, Wilmington, DE
pro se.

MEDINILLA, J.1
1
 Due to the elevation of Hon. Abigail M. LeGrow to the Supreme Court of Delaware, this matter
was reassigned to this Court for the limited purposes of this Rule 61 motion.
       AND NOW TO WIT, this 28th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of

William Douty’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner’s

Report and Recommendation, and the record in this matter, it appears to the Court that:

       1.      Defendant was arrested and charged with Assault Second degree for an

incident that occurred on January 20, 2022, against his wife. The incident was

captured on surveillance video and observed by eyewitnesses, where Defendant and

his wife were arguing and when she got out of the vehicle to walk away from the

vehicle, Defendant sped up and struck her with the car. 2 Then he stopped the car,

picked her up, and drove way.3 Victim wife suffered broken bones to her face and

thumb, sever lacerations to her face, contusions, and possible ligament damage to

her knee. 4

       2.      On April 14, 2022, in a pre-indictment plea, Defendant pled guilty to

Assault Second Degree. 5 In the plea agreement, the parties agreed to an “open”

sentencing.6 After a presentence investigation was completed, the Court sentenced

Defendant to eight years at Level V, suspended after 18 months for 9 months of

Level IV DOC Discretion, followed by one year of Level III probation. The Court

also imposed several conditions on Defendant’s sentence, including completion of

2
  July 15, 2022 Sentencing Transcript, at 4-6, 18-19.
3
  Id.
4
  July 15, 2022 Sentencing Transcript, at 5-6.
5
  D.I. 5.
6
  Id.
                                                2
domestic violence counseling and treatment.7 Of note was that Defendant was

previously convicted of Reckless Endangering Second Degree because of a prior

similar offence where he attempted to strike a former girlfriend with his vehicle.8

       3.      Defendant did not file a direct appeal.

       4.      He did file monthly applications. In January of 2023, Defendant filed

a timely motion under Rule 35 to reduce/modify his sentence, requesting Level IV

Home Confinement.9 The Court denied that motion.10 On June 8, 2023, Defendant,

again, submitted a request to modify his Level IV sentence claiming that DOC’s

work release program is structured such that the work pays off fines and earns

recommendations, in lieu of money. 11 And stated he prefers money. 12 That Rule 35

request was summarily dismissed as repetitive.13

       5.      As to this filing, Defendant filed his pro se Motion for Postconviction

Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 asserting claims of ineffective

7
  D.I. 7.
8
  July 15, 2022 Sentencing Transcript, at 4-5.
9
  D.I. 8.
10
   D.I. 11.
11
   D.I. 17, at *2.
12
   Id.
13
   D.I. 29.
                                                 3
assistance of counsel, coercion, and actual innocence.14 And he filed a Motion for

Appointment of Counsel.15

       6.     The Court referred Defendant’s motions to Superior Court

Commissioner Lynne M. Parker for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5).16

       7.     On April 18, 2023, the Commissioner denied Rule 61 Counsel and set

a briefing schedule for trial counsel to file an affidavit and for the Department of

Justice to file its legal memorandum in response to the Rule 61 Motion.17

       8.     On August 11, 2023, the Commissioner issued a Report, recommending

that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief. 18 In so doing,

the report addresses Defendant’s three claims and determined that Defendant’s plea

documents and colloquy established that the plea was not coerced, and that

Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or actual innocence

claims.19

14
   See Motion for Postconviction Relief Filed, State of Delaware v. William J. Douty, Crim. ID
No. 2201007430, D.I. 13 (Del. Super. Ct. March 6, 2023).
15
   See Motion for Appointment of Counsel, of Delaware v. William J. Douty, Crim. ID No.
2201007430, D.I. 14 (Del. Super. Ct. March 6, 2023).
16
   See 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)(b); DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(a)(5) (Under Delaware Superior
Court Rule 62(a)(5), the Court may refer to a Superior Court Commissioner case-dispositive
motions, including postconviction relief motions, and the Commissioner must submit “proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge, of any such matter.”).
17
   D.I. 19.
18
   Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations and Order, State of Delaware v. William J.
Douty, Crim. ID No. 2201007430, D.I. 30 (Del. Super. Ct. August 11, 2023).
19
   Id.
                                              4
       9.      After the Commissioner issues a report, “any party may serve and file

written objections” to the report within ten days.20 A party failing to comply with

this ten-day limit for appeal may foreclose that party’s ability to object to the

Commissioner’s report. 21

       10.     Defendant did not appeal the Commissioner’s Report. Accordingly, the

Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings of fact or

recommendations made by the Commissioner.”22

       11.     After undergoing a careful review of Defendant’s Motion for

Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner’s Report, and the record, the Court

ADOPTS in toto the findings of fact and recommendations in the Commissioner’s

Report. As such Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                    /s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                    Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                    Judge
oc:    Prothonotary
cc:    Department of Justice
       Investigative Services
       Defendant

20
   DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(a)(5)(ii).
21
   Id. 62(b).
22
   Id. 62(a)(5)(ii).
                                            5