IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Def. I.D. # 2108001587A v. ) ) ) RHANDY D. MASSEY, ) ) Defendant. )
Submitted: December 4, 2025 Decided: January 15, 2026
Upon Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (R1)
DENIED
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Rebecca E. Anderson, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 13 The Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947; Attorney for State of Delaware.
Rhandy D. Massey, SBI #00583561, Sussex Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 500, Georgetown, DE 19947; Pro Se.
KARSNITZ, R. J.
1 I. BACKGROUND
Rhandy D. Massey (“Defendant”) was charged with multiple criminal
offenses stemming from allegations made by his two minor daughters, M.M. and
L.M., of sexual abuse.
On Friday, January 20, 2023, Defendant submitted a motion pursuant to 11
Del. C. § 3508 (Delaware’s Rape Shield Statute), requesting an in camera hearing
to determine the admissibility of prior sexual conduct pertaining to L.M. and M.M.
The State filed its response via email on Sunday, January 22, 2023. I addressed the
motion on Monday, January 23, 2023, in a pre-trial hearing before jury selection
began. After full briefing and oral argument by both parties, I denied the motion.
On Monday afternoon, January 23, 2023, I held a teleconference with Trial
Counsel and the prosecutor to discuss the admission of evidence about Defendant’s
use of cocaine in front of his elder daughter, L.M. (she called the drug “root beer”).
This evidence related to the charge of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. After
discussion, counsel agreed that the evidence was only tangentially related to the sexual
abuse charges and its admission would be unduly prejudicial to Defendant under
D.R.E, Rule 404(b). I severed the Endangering the Welfare of a Child charge from
the rest of the charges, and the indictment was amended to omit that charge, so the
2 cocaine use evidence did not come into the trial of the sexual abuse charges.
At the conclusion of a week-long jury trial, on January 27, 2023, Defendant
was convicted of all remaining charges.
On February 6, 2023, Defendant filed a motion requesting a new trial pursuant
to Delaware Superior Court Criminal Rule 33. In support of the Motion, Defendant
argued, inter alia, that I used an incorrect legal standard in denying Defendant's
request for an in camera proceeding under 11 Del. C. § 3508. I denied this motion
on March 7, 2023.
On March 27, 2023, I sentenced Defendant to 119 years of incarceration at
Level V.
Defendant timely appealed his convictions to the Delaware Supreme Court.
At the State's request, on November 9, 2023, the Supreme Court remanded the case
to me to supplement the record and make additional findings relating to the
admissibility of evidence under the Rape Shield Statute.
On February 21, 2024, I held an evidentiary hearing. After extended briefing
and oral argument, during which Defendant again requested a new trial, on July 17,
2024, I confirmed my prior decision to bar certain evidence to attack the daughters’
credibility and returned the case to the Supreme Court. On September 4, 2025, the
Supreme Court held, inter alia, that I had applied the correct legal standard when I
ruled that Defendant could not use at trial his children's prior sexual abuse
3 allegations against their cousin and half-brother and affirmed his convictions.
On December 4, 2025, Defendant timely filed his first pro se Motion for
Postconviction Relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (the “Motion”). In the
Motion, Defendant raises eight claims of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel
(“Trial Counsel”) and one claim of prosecutorial misconduct.
In his Motion, Defendant did not request the appointment of Postconviction
Counsel to represent him. Rule 61(e)(1) provides in pertinent part:
Any indigent movant’s request for appointment of counsel shall be filed contemporaneously with the movant’s postconviction motion. Failure to file a contemporaneous request for appointment of counsel with the movant’s postconviction motion may be deemed a waiver of counsel.
I deem Defendant’s failure to file such a contemporaneous request to constitute a
waiver of the appointment of postconviction counsel to represent him, and I do not
do so.
II. ANALYSIS
I first address the four procedural bars of Rule 61.1 If a procedural bar exists,
as a general rule I will not address the merits of the postconviction claim. 2 A Rule
61 Motion can be barred for time limitations, successive motions, failure to raise
1 Ayers v. State, 802 A.2d 278, 281 (Del.2002) (citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 2 Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748 (Del 2016); State v. Page, 2009 WL 1141738, at*13 (Del. Super. April 28, 2009).
4 claims below, or former adjudication.3
First, a motion for postconviction relief exceeds time limitations if it is filed
more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final. 4 In Defendant’s case,
the judgment of conviction became final when the Supreme Court issued its mandate
or order finally determining the case on direct review.5 The Supreme Court issued
its mandate finally determining Defendant’s case on direct review on September 4,
2025. Defendant filed the Motion on December 4, 2025, well before the one-year
deadline. Therefore, consideration of the Motion is not barred by the one-year
limitation.
Second, second or subsequent motions for postconviction relief are not
permitted unless certain conditions are satisfied.6 Since this is Defendant’s first
motion for postconviction relief, consideration of the Motion is not barred by this
provision.
Third, grounds for relief “not asserted in the proceedings leading to the
judgment of conviction” are barred unless certain conditions are satisfied.7 It could
be argued that Defendant’s claims could have been asserted in the proceedings
leading to his conviction and are therefore barred. However, Defendant’s grounds
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i). 4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). 5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2). 7 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3).
5 for relief are couched as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and I will treat
them as such. It is well-settled Delaware law that, as collateral claims, ineffective
assistance of counsel claims are properly raised for the first time in postconviction
proceedings. 8 Therefore, my consideration of the Motion is not barred by this
Fourth, grounds for relief formerly adjudicated in the case, including
“proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a postconviction
proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus hearing” are barred. Defendant’s claims
have not been formerly adjudicated. My consideration of the Motion is not barred
by this provision.
None of these four procedural bars apply either to (i) a claim that there is new
evidence of actual innocence in fact, or to (ii) a claim that a retroactively applied
rule of constitutional law renders the conviction invalid.9 Defendant makes no such
claims here.
Since none of the procedural bars under Rule 61 apply, I will consider the
Motion on its merits.
To succeed on the merits, Defendant must meet the two-part standard
8 State v. Schofield, 2019 WL 103862, at *2 (Del. Super. January 3, 2019); Thelemarque v. State, 2016 WL 556631, at *3 (Del. Feb. 11, 2016) (“[T]his Court will not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal.”); Watson v. State, 2013 WL 5745708, at *2 (Del. Oct. 21, 2013) (“It is well-settled that this Court will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance that is raised for the first time in a direct appeal.”). 9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i) and (ii).
6 established in Strickland v. Washington, 10 as applied in Delaware. 11 Under
Strickland, Defendant must show that Trial Counsel’s representation “fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness” (the “performance prong”); and (2) the
“deficient performance prejudiced [his] defense.” (the “prejudice prong”).12
As to the performance prong, Defendant must demonstrate that Trial
Counsel’s decisions were unreasonable. There is a presumption that Trial Counsel’s
challenged conduct may be considered a strategic choice, and there is deference
afforded to such strategy.13
As to the prejudice prong, Defendant must demonstrate that there exists a
reasonable probability that, but for Trial Counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial
would have been different. 14 Even if Trial Counsel’s performance was
professionally unreasonable, it would not warrant setting aside the judgment of
conviction if the error had no effect on the judgment. 15 A showing of prejudice
“requires more than a showing of theoretical possibility that the outcome was
affected.”16
Strickland teaches that there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective
10 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 11 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988). 12 Strickland at 687. 13 Id. at 689. 14 Albury, at 687; Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038, 1043 (Del. 2003); Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996). 15 Strickland, at 691. 16 Frey v. Fulcomer, 974 F.2d 348, 358 (3d Cir. 1992).
7 assistance claim to approach the inquiry in a particular order, or even to address both
prongs of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one. In
particular, a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient
before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant because of the alleged
deficiencies. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of
lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed.17 In every case, the court
should be concerned with whether, despite the strong presumption of reliability, the
result of the particular proceeding is unreliable because of a breakdown in the
adversarial process that our system counts on to produce just results.18
Nine Grounds for Relief
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (8)
Defendant asserts eight ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He asserts
that Trial Counsel failed to:
(1) fully investigate the alleged forgery of his signature on private and
government documents by his ex-wife in order to defraud him, evidence
of which would have impeached her credibility;
(2) object to a jury instruction that he fled from the police, when in fact he had
been advised by counsel not to go to the police station until he retained a
17 Strickland, at 697. 18 Id. at 696.
8 lawyer;
(3) present evidence that his cocaine use gave rise to his paranoia, thereby
leaving the false impression in the minds of the jurors that his paranoia was
instead due to his guilt;
(4) point out to the jury that the victims’ testimony at trial was inconsistent
with their statements at their interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center
(“CAC”);
(5) object to the State’s claim that Defendant was muddy when he was
apprehended, when in fact Department of Corrections (“DOC”) records do
not indicate that his clothes were muddy, and they are still in the DOC bag;
(6) object to the detective’s false testimony that Defendant apologized for
fleeing from police;
(7) investigate what kind of “deal” a co-worker and witness, Sidney Marvel,
got from the State of Maryland for testifying in the case; and,
(8) retain an expert to counterbalance the testimony of the CAC witness, since
CAC is State-funded and therefore only testifies in favor of the State.
Prosecutorial Misconduct (1)
Defendant also asserts one claim of prosecutorial misconduct:
(9) The prosecutor directed the detective not only to omit references to
Defendant’s cocaine habit but also to omit unspecified “other relevant
9 material.”
Several of Defendant’s claims are related, and I will discuss those claims together.
Flight from Police -- Claims (2) and (6)
Twelve days elapsed from the offenses until the apprehension of Defendant.
In sidebars at trial, Trial Counsel stated that Defendant had been advised by a
previous lawyer (whom he consulted before he retained Trial Counsel) not to speak
with police until he had retained counsel. When Defendant was apprehended, he
declined an interview with the police and asked for counsel. Upon apprehension, the
detective took a DNA swab from Defendant but asked him no questions. During the
processing of the swab, and without any prompting from the detective, Defendant
made the spontaneous utterance “I’m sorry for running.” During the detective’s
testimony, there was a sidebar during which the prosector stated that she wanted to
be very careful about eliciting this testimony since Defendant had already invoked
his rights, and that the testimony went only to flight and the proposed flight jury
instruction. Trial Counsel stated “if it’s a spontaneous utterance … I can’t object to
it,” and in he did not object during direct examination of the detective.
I presented the following limiting instruction to the jury:
In this case, the State contends that the defendant evaded arrest and took flight after committing the charged offenses. Evidence of evasion of arrest and flight is admissible in a criminal case as a circumstance tending to show consciousness of guilt or defendant’s identity as the person who committed the offenses.
10 You may consider this evidence for this limited purpose only. You may not consider evidence of evasion of arrest or flight as proof that the defendant is a bad person and therefore probably committed the offenses. You may use this evidence only to help you decide whether the defendant was the person who committed the charged offenses.
The evidence of evasion of arrest or flight, if proved, may be considered by you in light of all other facts proved. Whether or not such evidence shows consciousness of guilt or identity, and the significance attached to such evidence, are matters solely for your determination.
As is customary, there was fulsome discussion of the jury instructions by counsel.
Trial Counsel did not object to the foregoing instruction.
Defendant complains about Trial Counsel’s decision not to object to the
spontaneous utterance and states that the detective lied about the spontaneous
utterance. As a seasoned criminal attorney, Trial Counsel is fully aware of the rules
of evidence, and I will not second guess his professional judgment. It was a perfectly
reasonable (and legally correct) decision on his part, and certainly not below any
objective standard of reasonableness. As to the credibility of the detective’s
testimony, that was a factual matter for the jury to consider along with all other
evidence, and I will not disturb it.
Even if Trial Counsel’s judgment were unreasonable, there is such an
abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which Defendant
was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
11 Defendant’s Cocaine Use – Claims (3) and (9)
Somewhat counterintuitively, Defendant asserts that this cocaine use should
have been presented to the jury so that it could be perceived as the cause of his
paranoia, rather than guilt. Both Trial Counsel and the prosector took pains to
exclude such evidence. Indeed, as discussed above, I held a teleconference with Trial
Counsel and the prosecutor to discuss the admission of evidence about Defendant’s
use of cocaine in front of his elder daughter, L.M. (she called the drug “root beer”).
This evidence related to the charge of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. After
discussion, counsel agreed that the evidence was only tangentially related to the sexual
abuse charges and its admission would be unduly prejudicial to Defendant under Rule
404(b). I severed the Endangering the Welfare of a Child charge from the rest of the
charges, and the indictment was amended to omit that charge, so the cocaine use
evidence did not come into the trial of the sexual abuse charges.
As seasoned criminal attorneys, Trial Counsel and the prosector are fully
aware of the rules of evidence regarding relevance and prejudicial evidence, and I
will not second guess their professional judgment. It was a perfectly reasonable (and
legally correct) decision on their part, and certainly not below any objective standard
of reasonableness. Obviously, I agreed, since I severed the charge related to cocaine
use (Endangering the Welfare of a Child).
Even if Trial Counsel’s and the prosector’s judgment were unreasonable, there
12 is such an abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which
Defendant was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
CAC Evidence – Claims (4) and (8)
Defendant faults Trial Counsel for failure to point out the inconsistency of the
testimony of the two victims at trial with their statements at CAC. He also asserts
that, since CAC is funded by the State, it is biased in favor of the State and therefore
Trial Counsel should have retained an expert to present counterbalancing testimony.
With respect to the inconsistent testimony of the two victims, they are young
children, and a significant time had elapsed between the CAC interview and the trial.
The jury heard both the CAC interview and the girls’ trial testimony and were free
to believe any of their trial testimony or CAC statements in whole or in part,
including any inconsistencies therein. Trial Counsel may have strategically decided
not to appear to be “piling on” the victims, and I will not second guess this strategic
decision. In any event, Trial Counsel’s conduct was not below any objective standard
of reasonableness.
Even if Trial Counsel’s conduct were unreasonable, there is such an
abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which Defendant
was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
Forgery of Documents by Ex-Wife – Claim (1)
Around the time of the offenses, Defendant sold a piece of real estate which
13 was in his name only and received a significant amount of money. In fact, settlement
on the sale occurred the day after the offenses. At trial, Defendant presented evidence
that his ex-wife had forged his name on documents so that the proceeds would be
deposited into their joint bank account, to which she had access, when he had
requested that a check be given to him in his name only. Trial Counsel argued that
this suggested that his ex-wife had the financial motivation to get their daughters to
testify against him so that only she – and they -- could profit from the transaction.
Documents and testimony were introduced into evidence regarding these
events and Trial Counsel argued his position to the jurors. They were free to judge
the ex-wife’s credibility on this issue and accept or reject this evidence in whole or
in part. Nonetheless Defendant faults Trial Counsel for not “fully investigating” the
alleged forgery. In my view, Trial Counsel acquitted himself reasonably on this
front. He presented both documentary evidence and fully examined and cross-
examined both Defendant and his ex-wife about the matter. It was not necessary to
call bank employees, settlement agents, or present other evidence to make his point.
In any event, Trial Counsel’s conduct was not below any objective standard of
reasonableness.
Even if Trial Counsel’s conduct were unreasonable, there is such an
abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which Defendant
was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
14 Muddy Clothes – Claim (5)
When Defendant was apprehended, a neighbor (Sidney Marvel) testified that
Defendant had entered Marvel’s home and was wet, partially clothed, muddy, and
disheveled, because he had been in the Nanticoke River behind Marvel’s home.
Marvel called the police and Marvel’s son chased Defendant down the road, where
he was finally apprehended after having been on the run. Defendant now objects to
the State’s claim that Defendant was muddy when he was apprehended, when in fact
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) records do not indicate that his clothes were
muddy, and they are still in the bag from DOC.
Testimony at trial indicated that Defendant was muddy when he was
apprehended. The jurors were free to judge the credibility of Marvel and others on
this issue and accept or reject this testimony in whole or in part. I am certainly not
going to second guess the jury on this fact. Defendant faults Trial Counsel for not
presenting rebuttal evidence that DOC records do not indicate that his clothes were
muddy, and that they were still in the DOC bag. However, in my view, Trial
Counsel’s conduct was not below any objective standard of reasonableness.
Even if Trial Counsel’s conduct were unreasonable, there is such an
abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which Defendant
was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
15 Credibility of Witness Sidney Marvel – Claim 7
Sidney Marvel, a fact witness for the State, worked with Defendant at a trash
collection company. When Defendant was on the run, he asked Marvel if he could
stay with him. He did so for one night. Late the next night, he appeared in Marvel’s
home wet, partially clothed, muddy, and disheveled, because he had been in the
Nanticoke River behind Marvel’s home. Marvel called the police and Marvel’s son
chased Defendant down the road, where he was finally apprehended. After direct
examination, Trial Counsel did not cross-examine Marvel.
In the Motion, Defendant does not fault Trial Counsel for his conduct at trial
with respect to this claim, including his lack of cross-examination of Marvel. Rather,
he asserts that Trial Counsel should have conducted an investigation of what kind of
“deal” Marvel got from the “Maryland DOJ” for testifying against Defendant after
Defendant was apprehended. Defendant offers not one scintilla of evidence that there
was any such deal or, if so, what the deal was. I will not accept a conclusory and
self-serving statement in lieu of articulated facts. In any event, Trial Counsel’s
conduct was not below any objective standard of reasonableness.
Even if Trial Counsel’s conduct were unreasonable, there is such an
abundance of other evidence of Defendant’s guilt on the charges of which Defendant
was convicted that the outcome of the trial would have been no different.
16 III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Rhandy Massey’s Motion for
Postconviction Relief is summarily19 DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________ /s/ Craig A. Karsnitz
cc: Prothonotary John R. Garey, Esquire, 48 The Green, Dover, DE 19901
19 Under Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5).