State v. Bergholz

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedSeptember 24, 2025
Docket2107013754
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Bergholz (State v. Bergholz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Bergholz, (Del. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT of the STATE OF DELAWARE

Jeffrey J Clark Kent County Courthouse Resident Judge 38 The Green Dover, DE 19901 Telephone (302)735-2111

September 24, 2025

Mr. Dennis Kelleher, DAG Mr. Edward C. Gill, Esquire Department of Justice Law Office of Gill, Welsh, and 102 West Water Street Chamberla Dover, DE 19904 16 N. Bedford Street P.O. Box 824 Georgetown, DE 19947

RE: State v. Richard Bergholz, C.A. No. 2107013754

Counsel: The Court has reviewed the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), Mr. Bergholz’ three objections to the Report, and the record as it pertains to Mr. Bergholz’ objections. The Court requires further evidentiary context before evaluating the Lafler v. Cooper1 issue raised in Mr. Bergholz’ third objection. In large part, this context is necessary because Trial Counsel’s affidavit does not squarely address Mr. Bergholz’ contention that Trial Counsel advised Mr. Bergholz that his exposure was limited to a third offense driving under the influence conviction after a trial.

1 566 U.S. 156 (2012). As a result, the Court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as practical to address the issues surrounding Mr. Bergholz’ third objection. To avoid undue delay that would naturally accompany remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a hearing, and because the Court is charged with reviewing her decision on this objection de novo under Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5)(iv), the undersigned will conduct the hearing. There, the parties should be prepared to address the precise content of Trial Counsel’s advice to Mr. Bergholz about the risks he faced by proceeding to trial when compared to resolving the plea as a third offense. The parties may present any other evidence pertinent to the third objection as well which could certainly include, but not be limited to, the effect of any allegedly deficient advice on Mr. Berholz’ decision making.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/Jeffrey J Clark Resident Judge

cc: Trial Counsel

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lafler v. Cooper
132 S. Ct. 1376 (Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Bergholz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bergholz-delsuperct-2025.