Mobley v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 158, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TERRELL S. MOBLEY, § § No. 158, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID. No. 1906003128 A/B (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: March 24, 2025 Decided: April 25, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the record below, oral argument, the

Superior Court’s order on remand, and the parties’ supplemental submissions, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) A Superior Court jury convicted Terrell Mobley of various firearm

charges. After granting the State’s motion to declare Mobley a habitual offender,

the Superior Court sentenced him to 31 years of Level V incarceration. Mobley

appealed his convictions, raising two claims. First, he argued that the Superior

Court’s preliminary instruction advising the jury that the trial would be conducted in two parts violated Mobley’s right to an impartial jury. We rejected that claim in

our order dated December 5, 2024.1

(2) Mobley also argued that the State failed to produce impeachment

evidence relating to Corporal Leonard Moses, one of Mobley’s arresting officers,

whose sworn statements in a previous, unrelated case—State v. Daryus Whittle—

were false and misleading. Before trial, Mobley’s counsel requested discovery

related to Corporal Moses, and the Superior Court ordered the State to produce

certain materials. But based on Corporal Moses’s testimony during Mobley’s trial

and the State’s arguments to us on appeal, we were unable to conclude that no Brady

violation occurred. We therefore remanded the case to the Superior Court for in

camera review of certain materials.2

(3) Specifically, we asked the Superior Court to “conduct an in camera

review of Corporal Moses’s file and any WPD communications relating to Corporal

Moses’s affidavit or testimony in the Whittle matter.”3 We expressly stated that the

trial court could review any additional materials that it deemed appropriate.4 We

asked the court to determine based on its in camera review “whether any additional

1 Mobley v. State, No. 158, 2023, 2024 WL 5316320 (Del. Dec. 5, 2024) (ORDER), D.I. 62 [hereinafter “D.I. __” refers to the Del. Supr. Ct. Docket number in this case]. 2 Id. at *7. 3 Id. at *5–7. 4 Id. at *7 n.52. 2 evidence should have been disclosed to Mobley and, if so, whether the suppressed

evidence was material under Brady.”5

(4) On remand, the Superior Court ordered the State to produce for

inspection: (1) “[t]he Wilmington Police Department (WPD) personnel file of

Corporal Leonard Moses”; and (2) “any WPD communications relating to Corporal

Moses’s affidavit or testimony in State v. Daryus Whittle . . . including but not

limited to, any communications between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and WPD

and/or between the DOJ and Corporal Moses related to placing Corporal Moses on

the DOJ’s ‘Brady list’ or additional training for Corporal Moses.”6

(5) The State produced the following materials to the Superior Court: (1)

WPD’s application to the Delaware Department of Technology and Information

(DTI) “requesting any correspondence relevant to the [Superior Court’s] Order”; (2)

all the emails that DTI produced in response to WPD’s application and

“substantiated disciplinary files for Corporal Moses”; (3) materials that Corporal

Moses produced to WPD in response to its instruction to disclose any

communications he had received “relevant to the [Superior Court’s] Order”; and (4)

Corporal Moses’s complete personnel file.7

5 Id. at *7. 6 D.I. 65 (Dec. 10, 2024) (Super. Ct. Order for Production). 7 D.I. 66 (Jan. 29, 2025) (Super. Ct. Order on Remand). 3 (6) After reviewing the production in camera, the Superior Court issued its

Order on Remand (the “Order”). In its Order, the court found that the materials the

State produced (1) “do not establish any communication between the DOJ and WPD

related to [Corporal Moses’s] affidavit and testimony in State v. Daryus Whittle”;

and (2) “do not indicate any communication requiring [Corporal Moses] to be placed

on the DOJ’s ‘Brady list’ or suggest that he undergo additional training.”8 The court

concluded that there was “no evidence to suggest that [Corporal Moses] testified

untruthfully when he testified that no one from WPD discussed the Whittle matter

with him.”9

(7) After the Superior Court issued its Order and this matter was returned

to us, we asked both parties to file supplemental submissions addressing the Superior

Court’s Order. The State urges us to affirm Mobley’s convictions. Mobley, on the

other hand, contends that the State’s production to the Superior Court was

inadequate because it only encompassed electronic communications, which must not

have fully captured communications between DOJ and WPD. Mobley argues that

we should remand this matter a second time for additional production, suggesting

that the State should have interviewed or obtained affidavits from trial counsel in the

8 Id. at ¶ 6. 9 Id. at ¶ 7. 4 Whittle matter and from prosecutors and WPD supervisors who would have been

knowledgeable about what happened during and after the “Brady Board” meeting.10

(8) Mobley’s complaints center on the lack of transparency and apparent

inconsistencies in the Brady Board’s decision making, as well as the fact that

Corporal Moses was sufficiently prepared at Mobley’s trial to explain away his

missteps in Whittle. Having considered the record, we conclude that the Superior

Court appropriately exercised its discretion in determining what materials the State

should produce. The court was authorized to request any additional materials it felt

were appropriate, and we are confident in the court’s process and its conclusions that

no additional Brady material should have been produced to Mobley. Although

Mobley has identified inconsistencies in Corporal Moses’s testimony across a

number of cases, Mobley was able to impeach Corporal Moses with those

inconsistencies. Ultimately, it was the jury’s province to evaluate Corporal Moses’s

credibility. We therefore deny Mobley’s Brady claim on appeal.

(9) NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment

of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

10 D.I. 70 at 13–15 (Mar. 24, 2025) (Mobley’s Supp. Memo. to this Court). 5