State v. Robinson

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 21, 2024
• Docket: 1009012821
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 1009012821 ) BRANDON ROBINSON, ) ) Defendant. )

Date Submitted: February 8, 2024 Date Decided: March 21, 2024

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendant Brandon Robinson’s (“Robinson”) Motion

for Transcripts and To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), 1 Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61, 2 statutory and decisional law, and the record in this case, IT

APPEARS THAT:

(1) On September 22, 2011, Robinson was found guilty by jury trial of

Murder First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a

Felony (“PFDCF”). 3 On June 8, 2012, Robinson was sentenced as follows: for

Murder First Degree (IN10-09-1627), Level V for the balance of his natural life; and

for PFDCF (IN-10-09-1629), 8 years at Level V.4

1 D.I. 122, 123. 2 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. 3 D.I. 48. 4 D.I. 60. (2) Robinson appealed his conviction which was affirmed by the Supreme

Court on October 2, 2013.5

(3) Robinson filed his first postconviction relief motion on October 2,

2013,6 alleging Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.7

(4) On May 29, 2014, a motion to compel production of discovery and

issuance of a discovery protective order was filed in connection with Robinson’s

first postconviction relief motion, and it was granted on September 22, 2014.8

(5) On February 25, 2016, the Superior Court denied Robinson’s first

postconviction relief motion.9

(6) Robinson filed an appeal of the Superior Court’s denial to the Supreme

Court on March 28, 2016.10 The Supreme Court affirmed the denial on November

2, 2016.11

(7) On February 8, 2024, Robinson filed the instant Motion for Transcripts

and to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.12 He requests transcripts for his preliminary

5 D.I. 74. 6 D.I. 75. 7 Id.; Robinson v. State, 149 A.3d 158 (TABLE) (Del. 2016) (“Robinson raises four issues on appeal: (1) the Superior Court erred by denying his direct claim of multiple Brady violations; (2) Robinson’s counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial based on the alleged Brady violations; (3) the Superior Court erred by denying Robinson’s claim of cumulative due process errors; and (4) the Superior Court abused its discretion when it refused to grant an evidentiary hearing.”). 8 D.I. 83, 87. 9 D.I. 117. 10 D.I. 118. 11 D.I. 121. 12 D.I. 122, 123. 2 hearing, his indictment, a motion to disclosure the identity of a confidential

informant, an office conference proceeding on August 29, 2011, a September 22,

2011 Order by the Court; the State’s motion in limine dated September 13, 2011; a

letter from James Kriner to Eugene Mauer on September 12, 2011; the jury

instructions from his trial, the trial transcripts, the transcripts for jury selection, and

an email from James Kriner dated September 23, 2011.13

(8) Under Rule 61(d)(4), the Court has discretion to order transcripts when

a defendant has shown “good cause” and stated a “particularized need” for

transcripts.” 14 However, “[t]here is no absolute right to free transcripts in the

postconviction stage.”15

(9) In support of his Motion, Robinson argues that he is preparing another

postconviction relief motion based on the “new evidence” exception to the second

motion procedural bar under Rule 61.16 He claims he is preparing a motion alleging

Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel—both of which he previously

has submitted for the Court’s consideration in his first postconviction appeal.17

13 D.I. 122. 14 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(4). 15 State v. Hassan-El, 2024 WL 687842, at *2 (Super. Ct. Feb. 29, 2024) (citing State v. Jackson, 2006 WL 1229684, at *2 (Del. Super. May 3, 2006)). 16 D.I. 122. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. 17 Id. 3 (10) Under Rule 61(d)(2), successive postconviction relief motions will be

summarily dismissed unless Robinson pleads with particularity that he is “actually

innocent” based on new evidence.18

(11) Robinson requests transcripts to provide support for his successive

postconviction relief motion for alleged Brady violations and an ineffective

assistance of counsel claim—the same bases he raised in his first postconviction

relief motion.19 He claims that the transcripts will help him provide “new evidence”

to surpass the successive postconviction relief motion procedural bar. 20 However,

old transcripts and letters will not be considered “new evidence” if he was able to

previously rely on them during trial.21 Therefore, he provides no new evidence basis

for a successive postconviction appeal motion.

(12) Robinson has provided no basis for which he would be successful on a

successive postconviction motion. Additionally, he provides no factual or legal

support for his Motion. Therefore, the Court will not grant his Motion for

Transcripts.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Brandon

Robinson’s Motion for Transcripts and To Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.

18 Super. Crim. Ct. R. 61(d)(2). 19 Robinson v. State, 149 A.3d 158 (TABLE) (Del. 2016). 20 D.I. 122. 21 Purnell v. State, 254 A.3d 1053, 1097 (Del. 2021) (“[E]vidence is new where it was discovered since trial, and the circumstances must be such as to indicate that it could not have been discovered before trial with due diligence.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

cc: Original to Prothonotary Abigail E. Rodgers, DAG Brandon Robinson (SBI # 00611129)