State v. Powell

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 2203008695
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) v. ) ID No. 2203008695 ) ) NAQUAN POWELL, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: February 19, 2025 Decided: May 16, 2025

ORDER

1. Naquan Powell has moved for relief under Delaware Rules of Criminal

Procedure Rule 61.

2. Powell was indicted on 1 count of Burglary 1st Degree, 3 counts of

Kidnap 1st Degree, 1 count of Assault 2d Degree, 2 counts of Rape 1st Degree, 1

count of Rape 2d Degree, Strangulation, Assault 3d Degree, Terroristic Threatening,

2 counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and 1 count of Non-compliance with

Bond Conditions.

3. The facts giving rise to the charges as recounted in the presentence

investigative report are ugly. Powell had a prior relationship with the victim, a

woman named Megan Kerwin. Powell was to have no contact with Megan as a result

1 of a previous menacing charge out of Family Court. The no contact order was

apparently of no effect whatever.

4. The incident began on March 9, 2022, in Newark, Delaware, and ended

on March 14, 2022. In the intervening 5 days, Powell raped Megan repeatedly,

strangled and assaulted her multiple times and broke her nose. Powell ordered

Megan to drive him and her sons to New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Virginia.

On the last night in a hotel in Virginia, he assaulted her while her twin sons looked

on. The next morning Megan handed a note to a waitress at a Waffle House in

Richmond, Virginia, that she was being held captive by Powell.

5. The Defendant and his attorney worked out a plea agreement. Under

the terms of a plea agreement, Powell pled guilty to 1 count of Burglary 1st Degree,

1 count of Kidnap 2d Degree and 2 counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

Other terms of the agreement were that the State would “cap” its sentencing

recommendation at 15 years and the Defense was free to request no more than the

minimum mandatory sentence of 6 years. After accepting the guilty plea as

knowing, intelligent and voluntary, the Court ordered a presentence investigation

and deferred the date for sentencing.

6. Upon his return to Court, the sentencing judge imposed 2 years in

prison for the kidnap charge and 10 years in prison for the Burglary 1st degree,

2 followed by various levels of probation. Thus, the sentence was 3 years below the

State’s agreed upon “cap.” No appeal was filed.

7. Powell filed his timely Rule 61 motion in September, 2024, about 3

months after sentencing. After an initial review of the motion, the Court requested

an affidavit from his trial counsel. That affidavit was received in Court on February

20, 2025, and informs at least part of the Court’s view of the motion on its merits.

8. In his motion, Powell has raised three claims, each of which will be

addressed. First, Powell says double jeopardy was violated because he was also

charged with offenses in the State of Georgia, for which he says he was sentenced to

probation in Georgia. Second, Powell claims his attorney “withheld my discovery

from me” and other information gleaned by a private investigator was withheld and

his attorney lied to him. Finally, Powell says, “I was never given a copy of my

discovery from my attorney or the prosecutor when I requested it, so I wasn’t able

to actually defend myself.”

9. The affidavit of Trial Counsel reflects that the Defendant was indeed

indicted in the State of Georgia on charges of False Imprisonment and 2 counts of

“Cruelty to Children in the Third Degree” in Chatham County, Georgia, for offenses

occurring “on or about March 14, 2022.” The charges in Delaware were for offenses

that occurred in Delaware between March 9-11, 2022. Powell’s prosecution in

Georgia for crimes committed while in Georgia does not in any way impede

3 Delaware’s right to prosecute him for offenses committed in Delaware. His double

jeopardy claim is not meritorious.

10. Powell says counsel was ineffective because he “withheld my discovery

from me and also withheld information that was obtained by a private investigator.

He did nothing but lie to me as well.”

11. Trial Counsel’s affidavit recites that he kept Powell abreast of discovery

and did not withhold information obtained by a private investigator or lie to Powell.

12. Aside from the factual dispute, Powell makes no showing at all what

discovery he believes he was entitled to that was withheld and what or how access

to whatever it is/was would have likely changed the outcome. He does not identify

any “private investigator” which, the Court notes, the Office of Defense Services

does not generally retain. In order to state a claim under Rule 61, the claimant must

make some showing that, had the subject of the complaint been handled differently,

the result in his case would likely have been different. Powell makes no such claim.

He pled guilty and he received a sentence bargain as part of the plea agreement. The

Court honored the sentence bargain. He was the beneficiary of the bargain. These

complaints, even if factually accurate, do not demonstrate that he has suffered

“prejudice” as that term is used in Rule 61 litigation.1

1 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 695 (1984) (when a defendant challenges a conviction based on prejudice, “the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.”). 4 13. The plea of guilty specifically waived any right to contest the charges

and admitted that he was in fact guilty as charged. His guilty plea has created a very

tall mountain to climb to reverse course now and start over. His motion does not

make it to the foothills.

14. Powell says, “I was never given a copy of my discovery from my

attorney or the prosecutor when I requested it, so I wasn’t able to equally defend

myself (Brady v. Maryland).”

15. Powell was represented by experienced Trial Counsel, who swears he

received discovery, as required by Rule 16. When represented by an attorney at

public expense, Powell had no individual right to his own copy of “his” discovery.

Indeed, such discovery is usually covered by a Protective Order specifically

disallowing Trial Counsel sharing it directly with his/her client, to avoid complaints

of witness tampering, etc. It is not surprising he did not actually see the discovery –

it is not for him – it is for his attorney.

16. Perhaps more to the point, as noted above, Powell does not indicate

what he believes is in the discovery that would have changed the outcome of his

guilty plea, which included a bargained sentence. Again, absent a showing of

prejudice, Powell has shown no right to relief under Rule 61.

17. The Defendant admitted his guilt to the charges in open court and

received the benefit of 1) being convicted of less than all the charges and 2) a

5 sentencing recommendation that gave him a chance at release from prison in his

lifetime – a result that likely would not have happened had he been convicted at trial.

Nothing in his Rule 61 motion remotely suggests he received constitutionally

ineffective assistance of counsel or he is in any way entitled to relief under Rule 61.

Therefore, Powell’s motion for relief under Rule 61 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Charles E. Butler Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge

cc: Prothonotary Nichole T. Whetham Warner, Deputy Attorney General Naquan Powell (SBI # 00956789)