SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD F. STOKES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE RESIDENTJUDGE 1 Tl-IE cIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORG ETOWN, DE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 856-5264
November 28, 2018
N448 STATE l\/IAIL
Mr. Michael C. Stelljes
SBI: 00543789
Howard R. Young Correctional Institution 1301 E. 12lh Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: State of Delaware v. Michael C. Sl;elljes Case ID: 1702005851
Dear Mr. Stelljes:
I have reviewed your motion for postconviction relief, and it is denied.l
You pled guilty to driving under the influence and two counts of vehicular assault on September 20, 2018. The sentence reflected the plea agreement On the driving under the influence charge, you were imprisoned for 18 months with the balance suspended after serving 90 days under the provisions of 11 Del.C. § 4204(1<) for level 2 probation. On each of the vehicular assault in the second
1 This motion was submitted under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Rule apeaks of “judgment of conviction” which technically is a guilty verdict after trial. An admission at a violation is not a guilty verdict, and the motion is summarily dismissed The use of a Rule 61 application to attack the sentence received for a violation of probation is inappropriate State v. Berry, 2007 WL 2822928 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 2007). On the other hand, Rule 61 consideration was given to violation of probation proceedings in State v. Phillips, 2002 WL 524281 (Del. Super. Ct. March 4, 2002); Phillips v. Kearney, 2003 WL 2004392 at *2 (D. Del. April 21, 2003). However, even if Rule 61 applies, which it does not in my view, the motion would nonetheless be denied for the reasons discussed above.
degree charges, a one year sentence was entered suspended for probation.2
Upon release from level 5, you started probation. On January 18, 2018, your probation officer filed a violation report.3 lt alleged that you violated conditions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9. Condition 1 reported an arrest for shoplifting which was pending in Kent County, Case ID #1801003194; The docket is attached as Exhibit B. You made reference to a drug paraphernalia charge in Court of Common Pleas Kent County Case ID 1802008651. The docket is attached as Exhibit C. There was no mention of the charge in the violation report. Condition 2 alleged that you failed to report the shoplifting arrest and police contact; Condition 3 claimed you failed to report to probation on 12/19/17; Condition 7 alleged you tested positive for illegal drugs without a prescription and Condition 9 alleged a violation of a zero tolerance condition related to the drug use. A hearing was held on February 23, 2018 and you were represented by Mr. Jeffery McLane, Esquire, a public defender.4 At his request, Condition 1 was not adjudicated because the charge was pending. You admitted violating all the remaining conditions. A TASC evaluation was requested by me to learn further information,
and sentencing was deferred.
On March 23, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held.5 Again, you were represented by the public defender’s office. TASC assessed you and presented a verbal report. Your background with drugs was discussed. The recommendation was for closer supervision. This could be at either the Crest Program or at level 4 home confinement with TASC and an lntensive Outpatient Program (“IOP”). Your probation officer recommended the Crest Program. Ultimately, you were sentenced to level 5 imprisonment suspended for completion of Crest.
On March 28, 2018, you arrived at the Central Violation of Probation Center to begin the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program. On April 2, 2018, you were discharged for refusing to participate. Your refusal was the basis for a second violation of probation report. On April 9, 2018, a hearing was held
2 State v. Michael C. Stelljes, Del. Super. Ct. Crim. Dkt. No. 1702005851, at Docket Item (“D.l.”) 15 attached as ExhibitA.
3 D.I. 16. 4 D.l. 21, 23.
5 D.l. 25.
and you were again represented by the public defender’s office6 As you refused to do the program you were resentenced to the level 5 Key Program as recommended by your probation officer.
On your appearances for the three hearing dates , your public defender advised you of the appeal rights to the Supreme Court.7 No appeal was filed. However, you did file two requests for reduction of the sentence under Rule 35 which were denied.8 A Supreme Court appeal was not filed from them. Presently, you continue to be in the Key Program.
In your Rule 61 motion, you claim your public defender was ineffective The statement is made: “counsel never told me to or advised me if l wanted to wait the charges to be dealt with ...” This claim necessarily focuses on the February 23 date Apparently, you surmise that the hearing would have been postponed; you would not have been sent to the Crest Program, and, therefore, you would not have been in a position to refuse to participate
Such vague, speculative and conclusory allegations are never sufficient for Rule 61 relief. Further, the pending shoplifting charge played no role in the proceedings Your admissions to violating the remaining conditions provided an ample basis to support the new sentence Furthermore, your hearing would never have been postponed to await a decision on the shoplifting charge where you have an illegal drug and failure to comply with supervision background The Court has authority to adjudicate new charges in a violation hearing because trial and probation standards are different lndeed a later acquittal of new charges after an earlier violation of them in a probation hearing does not change the result.9
Moreover, to prevail on an ineffectiveness of counsel basis, the two-prong test laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington"° must be satisfied. Somerville v. State explained the applicable standard in the
6 D.I. 31.
7 D.I. 22, 26, 32.
8 D.I. 34, 35, 36, 37.
9 State v. Diaz, 113 A.3d 1081 (Del. 2015).
10 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
context of a guilty plea that is roughly analogous to a probation admission:
Strickland requires a defendant to show that: ( l) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial...[R]eview is subject to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable The purpose of this presumption is to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight in examining a strategic course of conduct that may have been within the range of professional reasonableness at the time11
You have not met either prong of the analysis. You made no showing to prove that your counsel acted below an objective standard of reasonableness when providing assistance at the time of the violation hearing. No judge would have delayed the violation proceedings, and defense counsel made no error and acted within recognized standards of competence There is no showing that you would not have admitted the violation but for counsel’s alleged error in not seeking a postponement
You also complain about the lack of access to a law library. This kind of claim is procedurally barred under Criminal Rule 61(i)(3),12 (with the exception of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD F. STOKES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE RESIDENTJUDGE 1 Tl-IE cIRCLE, SUITE 2 GEORG ETOWN, DE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 856-5264
November 28, 2018
N448 STATE l\/IAIL
Mr. Michael C. Stelljes
SBI: 00543789
Howard R. Young Correctional Institution 1301 E. 12lh Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: State of Delaware v. Michael C. Sl;elljes Case ID: 1702005851
Dear Mr. Stelljes:
I have reviewed your motion for postconviction relief, and it is denied.l
You pled guilty to driving under the influence and two counts of vehicular assault on September 20, 2018. The sentence reflected the plea agreement On the driving under the influence charge, you were imprisoned for 18 months with the balance suspended after serving 90 days under the provisions of 11 Del.C. § 4204(1<) for level 2 probation. On each of the vehicular assault in the second
1 This motion was submitted under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The Rule apeaks of “judgment of conviction” which technically is a guilty verdict after trial. An admission at a violation is not a guilty verdict, and the motion is summarily dismissed The use of a Rule 61 application to attack the sentence received for a violation of probation is inappropriate State v. Berry, 2007 WL 2822928 at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 2007). On the other hand, Rule 61 consideration was given to violation of probation proceedings in State v. Phillips, 2002 WL 524281 (Del. Super. Ct. March 4, 2002); Phillips v. Kearney, 2003 WL 2004392 at *2 (D. Del. April 21, 2003). However, even if Rule 61 applies, which it does not in my view, the motion would nonetheless be denied for the reasons discussed above.
degree charges, a one year sentence was entered suspended for probation.2
Upon release from level 5, you started probation. On January 18, 2018, your probation officer filed a violation report.3 lt alleged that you violated conditions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9. Condition 1 reported an arrest for shoplifting which was pending in Kent County, Case ID #1801003194; The docket is attached as Exhibit B. You made reference to a drug paraphernalia charge in Court of Common Pleas Kent County Case ID 1802008651. The docket is attached as Exhibit C. There was no mention of the charge in the violation report. Condition 2 alleged that you failed to report the shoplifting arrest and police contact; Condition 3 claimed you failed to report to probation on 12/19/17; Condition 7 alleged you tested positive for illegal drugs without a prescription and Condition 9 alleged a violation of a zero tolerance condition related to the drug use. A hearing was held on February 23, 2018 and you were represented by Mr. Jeffery McLane, Esquire, a public defender.4 At his request, Condition 1 was not adjudicated because the charge was pending. You admitted violating all the remaining conditions. A TASC evaluation was requested by me to learn further information,
and sentencing was deferred.
On March 23, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held.5 Again, you were represented by the public defender’s office. TASC assessed you and presented a verbal report. Your background with drugs was discussed. The recommendation was for closer supervision. This could be at either the Crest Program or at level 4 home confinement with TASC and an lntensive Outpatient Program (“IOP”). Your probation officer recommended the Crest Program. Ultimately, you were sentenced to level 5 imprisonment suspended for completion of Crest.
On March 28, 2018, you arrived at the Central Violation of Probation Center to begin the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program. On April 2, 2018, you were discharged for refusing to participate. Your refusal was the basis for a second violation of probation report. On April 9, 2018, a hearing was held
2 State v. Michael C. Stelljes, Del. Super. Ct. Crim. Dkt. No. 1702005851, at Docket Item (“D.l.”) 15 attached as ExhibitA.
3 D.I. 16. 4 D.l. 21, 23.
5 D.l. 25.
and you were again represented by the public defender’s office6 As you refused to do the program you were resentenced to the level 5 Key Program as recommended by your probation officer.
On your appearances for the three hearing dates , your public defender advised you of the appeal rights to the Supreme Court.7 No appeal was filed. However, you did file two requests for reduction of the sentence under Rule 35 which were denied.8 A Supreme Court appeal was not filed from them. Presently, you continue to be in the Key Program.
In your Rule 61 motion, you claim your public defender was ineffective The statement is made: “counsel never told me to or advised me if l wanted to wait the charges to be dealt with ...” This claim necessarily focuses on the February 23 date Apparently, you surmise that the hearing would have been postponed; you would not have been sent to the Crest Program, and, therefore, you would not have been in a position to refuse to participate
Such vague, speculative and conclusory allegations are never sufficient for Rule 61 relief. Further, the pending shoplifting charge played no role in the proceedings Your admissions to violating the remaining conditions provided an ample basis to support the new sentence Furthermore, your hearing would never have been postponed to await a decision on the shoplifting charge where you have an illegal drug and failure to comply with supervision background The Court has authority to adjudicate new charges in a violation hearing because trial and probation standards are different lndeed a later acquittal of new charges after an earlier violation of them in a probation hearing does not change the result.9
Moreover, to prevail on an ineffectiveness of counsel basis, the two-prong test laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington"° must be satisfied. Somerville v. State explained the applicable standard in the
6 D.I. 31.
7 D.I. 22, 26, 32.
8 D.I. 34, 35, 36, 37.
9 State v. Diaz, 113 A.3d 1081 (Del. 2015).
10 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
context of a guilty plea that is roughly analogous to a probation admission:
Strickland requires a defendant to show that: ( l) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) counsel’s actions were so prejudicial that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial...[R]eview is subject to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was professionally reasonable The purpose of this presumption is to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight in examining a strategic course of conduct that may have been within the range of professional reasonableness at the time11
You have not met either prong of the analysis. You made no showing to prove that your counsel acted below an objective standard of reasonableness when providing assistance at the time of the violation hearing. No judge would have delayed the violation proceedings, and defense counsel made no error and acted within recognized standards of competence There is no showing that you would not have admitted the violation but for counsel’s alleged error in not seeking a postponement
You also complain about the lack of access to a law library. This kind of claim is procedurally barred under Criminal Rule 61(i)(3),12 (with the exception of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim). This provision states that “any ground for relief that was not asserted in the proceedings leading up to the judgment of conviction, as required by the rules of this court, is thereafter barred, unless the movant shows (A) cause for relief from the procedural default and (B) prejudice from violation of the movant’s rights.”13 In order to show cause, you must allege
" S()merville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997).
12 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3) provides: (3) Procedural default Any ground for relief that was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, as required by the rules of this court, is thereafter barred, unless the movant shows (a) cause for relief from the procedural default and (b) prejudice from violation of the movant’s rights.
13 Rule 61(i)(3).
more than the fact that a claim was not raised earlier in the process.14 You must show that “some external impediment” prohibited raising the claim.15 Further, to show prejudice, you must demonstrate that there was a “substantial likelihood” that7 had the claim been raised, the outcome of the case would have been different.16 Here, the violation hearing would not have been delayed. Assuming without deciding that the alleged lack of legal resources was “an impediment”, you suffered no prejudice Therefore, your claim is procedurally barred. You must show both cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default bar.l7
Considering the foregoing, your motion is denied. Although you did not
raise this point, upon review, you are entitled to more credit time The adjustment does not effect the sentencing to Key. A corrected order is attached.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RFS :tls Enclosures
cc: David Hume, IV, Esquire, Department of Justice Jeffery P. McLane, Esquire, Office of Defense Services
14 State v. Wescott, 2014 WL 7740466, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 24, 2014).
'J\
Ia'. (Citing Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990)).
16 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 748 (Del. 1990).
7 Blackwell v. State, 736 A.2d 971, 973 (Del. 1999).
State of Delaware v. State'S Atty: AMANDA R NYMAN ,
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET
( as of
11/13/2018 )
MICHAEL C STELLJES
Defense Atty: MICHAEL A CAPASSO ,
ASSiqned Judge:
Charges:
Count
Crim.Action#
Esq.
AKA: MICHAEL
MICHAEL
MICHAEL Description
DOB: STELLJES STELLJES STEELJES S STELLJES
Page 1
09/09/1989
Dispo. Date
003 004
005 006 007
1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851 1702005851
Event Date
Event
ISl7020734Rl VSl702073401 VSl702073402 ISl7020735R1 VSl702073501 VSl702073502 1817020736W ISl7020737R1 VSl702073701 VSl702073702 ISl7020738W ISl7020739W ISl7020740W
Docket Add Date
vEH.ASSAULT 2ND vIoL o/PROBATN vIoL o/PRoBATN vEH.ASSAULT 2ND vIoL o/PRoBATN vIoL o/PROBATN DR LIC SUsP/REV DUI oF DRUGS vIoL o/PROBATN vIoL o/PROBATN oPER UNREG Mv FAIL REQ INs FAIL SToP sIGN
09/20/2017 02/23/2018 04/19/2018 09/20/2017 02/23/2018 04/19/2018 09/20/2017 09/20/2017 02/23/2018 04/19/2018 09/20/2017 09/20/2017 09/20/2017
02/27/2017
02/28/2017
CASE ACCEPTED IN SUPERIOR COURT.
ARREST DATE:
R9W
INDICTMENT,
TRUE BILL FILED.
03/01/2017
APPLICATION FOR WARRANT AND CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL RULE 9 WARRANT FILED BY AMANDA NYMAN.
02/27/2017 IT IS ORDERED,
ORDER:
SHALL BE ISSUED.
GRAVES T. PURSUANT TO RULE 9 THAT WARRANTS FOR THE SAID
MEMORANDUM/R9W BOND RECOMMENDATIONS FILED.
TO: COURT
RECOMMENDED AMOUNT:
FRoM: DAG-NYMAN $2,000 sEcURED
NO CONTACT WITH VICTIMS MICHAEL FANNIN AND MATTHEW BALDWIN.
RULE 9 WARRANT ISSUED.
“ Exhab~.+ A"
HENLEY
suPERIoR couRT cRIMINAL DocKET Page 2 ( as of 11/13/2018 )
State of Delaware v. MICHAEL C sTELLJEs DOB: 09/09/1989 state's Atty: AMANDA R NYMAN , Esq. AKA: MICHAEL sTELLJEs Defense Atty: MICHAEL s sTELLJEs No. Event Date Docket Add Date Judge Event 7 05/24/2017 05/24/2017 HowARD ALICIA B. RULE 9 wARRANT RETURNED sECURED BAIL-HELD 2,700.00 100%
DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED, WAIVED READING, ENTERED PLEA OF NOT GUILTY AND REQUESTED A TRIAL BY JURY. CCR-6/19/l7
8 05/30/2017 05/31/2017 DIsCovERY REQUEST FILED BY MICHAEL cAPAsSo, EsQ. 10 05/31/2017 06/05/2017
DISCOVERY RESPONSE/STATE'S RECIPROCAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY AMANDA REESE NYMAN, ESQ
9 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 RELEASED oN $2,?00.00 SECURED BAIL FoR APPEARANCE oN 6/19/17. 11 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 BRADY M. JANE
CASE REVIEW CALENDAR CAPIAS ORDERED-$5000.00 CASH ONLY. BEGIN FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.
CR/HAYNES
12 06/26/2017 06/26/2017 HOWARD ALICIA B. CAPIAS RETURN - TRIALABLE PENDING CASH BAIL 2,700.00 100% DEFENDANT SCHEDULED FOR CASE REVIEW 7/17/17 AT 9AM.
13 07/17/2017 07/17/2017
CASE REVIEW CALENDAR: SET FOR FINAL CASE REVIEW. FCR: 8/23/2017 TJT: 8/29/2017
14 07/25/2017 07/27/2017 coNTINUANCE REQUEST FILED BY DAG NYMAN, THE sTATE CHEMIST Is oUT oN vACATIoN LEAVE. GRANTED. NEW DATES: FCR: 9/20/17 AND JT: 9/26/17. 15 09/20/2017 09/20/2017 SToKES RICHARD F FINAL cAsE REVIEW: DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY/SENTENCED PLEA AGREEMENT, TRUTH IN sENTENCING/GUILTY PLEA FORM, IMMEDIATE sENTENCING FoRM, N/P REMAINING cHARGEs. ATTY: CAPASso CR: KH 16 01/18/2018 01/25/2018 vIoLATIoN oF PRoBATIoN REPORT FILED BY KELLIE MASSEY 567534. REQUESTING A cAPIAs. SENT To CHAMBERS. 17 01/22/2018 01/25/2018 SToKES RICHARD F CAPIAS ISSUED FoR vIoLATIoN oF PRoBATIoN. $8000.00 cASH oNLY. 18 02/01/2018 02/01/2018 CASH BAIL REFUND IN THE AMoUNT oF $2,700. To: AMERICAN FUNDING CHECK #6105.
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET Page 3 ( as of 11/13/2018 )
State of Delaware v. MICHAEL C STELLJES DOB: 09/09/1989 State'S Atty: AMANDA R NYMAN , ESq. AKA: MICHAEL STELLJES Defense Atty: MICHAEL S STELLJES No. Event Date Docket Add Date Judge Event 19 02/14/2018 02/14/2018 HOWARD ALICIA B. CAPIAS RETURN - NON-TRIABLE PENDING CASH BAIL 8, 000. 00 100% DEFENDANT SCHEDULED FOR VOP HEARING ON 2/23/18 AT 9: 3OAM BEFORE JUDGE STOKES. 20 02/14/2018 02/16/2018
LETTER FRoM CHAMBERS To DEFENDANT. RE: voP HEARING SCHEDULED FoR 2/23/2018 @ 9:00 A.M.
21 02/23/2018 02/23/2018 STOKES RICHARD F VIoLATIoN-oF-PROBATION HEARING: DEFENDANT FouND IN vIoLATIoN.sENTENCING DEFERRED.SENTENCING DATE:
DEFENDANT To HAVE A TASC EVALUATION SENTENCE DATE: 3/23/2018 AT 9:00 ATTY; MCLANE
CR: KH 22 02/23/2018 02/23/2018
ADVICE REGARDING APPEAL FROM VOP HEARING FILED MR. MCLANE, ESQ 23 02/23/2018 02/23/2018 STOKES RICHARD F
oRDER: Now THIS 23RD DAY oF FEBRUARY, 2018, THE DEFENDANT wAs BEFoRE THE coURT THIS DATE FoR A vIoLATIoN oF PRoBATIoN HEARING IN THE ABovE cAPTIoNED CASE; AND WHEREAS, THE DEFENDANT WAs FoUND To BE IN vIoLATIoN oF PRoBATIoN, BoND wAs REvoKED, AND IT 15 HEREBY oRDERED THAT TASC sHALL EVALUATE THE DEFENDNATN FoR TREATMENT NEEDS AND REPoRT To THE COURT AT sENTENCING oN FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9: 30 A. M 1T rs So oRDERED.
24 02/23/2018 02/23/2018 LETTER FRoM CHAMBERS To DEFENDANT RE: DEFENDANT voP sENTENCING oN 3/23/2018 AT 9:30 A.M
25 03/23/2018 03/23/2018 sToKES RICHARD F sENTENCING cALENDAR: DEFENDANT SENTENCED. ATTY; RoBINsoN
CR: KH 26 03/23/2018 03/23/2018
ADVICE REGARDING APPEAL FROM VOP HEARING FILED BY ROBERT ROBINSON, ESQ 27 03/23/2018 04/04/2018
DEFENDANT ENTERS INTO THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM. 33 04/04/2018 04/25/2018 STOKES RICHARD F
CORRECTED SENTENCE FILED. NOW THIS 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018, THE SENT
ORDER IS HEREBY CORRECTED TO REMOVE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DEEMED A
HABITUAL OFFENDER, WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED ON THE ORDER DATED
9/20/2017. ALL PREVIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT. 28 04/06/2018 04/06/2018 HOWARD ALICIA B.
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL DOCKET Page 4 ( as of 11/13/2018 )
State of Delaware v. MICHAEL C STELLJES DOB: 09/09/1989 State'S Atty: AMANDA R NYMAN , ESq. AKA: MICHAEL STELLJES Defense Atty: MICHAEL S STELLJES No. Event Date Docket Add Date Judge Event
ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT.
PROBATION OFFICER:
BAIL HEARING HELD THIS DATE AND BAIL SET ON VOPS AS FOLLOWS: BAIL SET: HELD WITHOUT BAIL
VOP HRNG. ON 4/19/18 AT 1230 P.M. BEFORE JUDGE STOKES.
29 04/06/2018 04/06/2018 vIoLATIoN oF PRoBATIoN REPoRT FILED BY DoREEN WILLIAMS 584905. 30 04/06/2018 04/06/2018
LETTER FROM CHAMBERS TO DEFENDANT.
RE: ADVISING OF VOP HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 4/19/18 @ 1:00 P.M. 31 04/19/2018 04/19/2018 STOKES RICHARD F
VIOLATION-OF-PROBATION HEARING: DEFENDANT FOUND IN
VIOLATION.SENTENCED.
ATTY: ROBINSON
CR; KH 32 04/19/2018 04/19/2018
ADVICE REGARDING APPEAL FRoM voP HEARING FILED BY RoBERT RoBINsoN, ESQ 34 07/09/2018 07/09/2018 sToKEs RICHARD F
MoTIoN FoR REDUCTION oF sENTENcE FILED BY DEFENDANT. 35 07/13/2018 07/16/2018 sToKEs RICHARD F
MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED
36 08/10/2018 08/13/2018 STOKES RICHARD F MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT. 37 08/15/2018 08/17/2018 STOKES RICHARD F
MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
38 08/30/2018 08/30/2018 MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF FILED BY DEFENDANT. R1
*** END OF DOCKET LISTING AS OF 11/13/2018 *** PRINTED BY: CSCTSAN
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL DOCKET Page 1 ( as of 11/13/2018 )
State of Delaware v. MICHAEL C STELLJES DOB: 09/09/1989 State'S Atty: , ESq. AKA: MICHAEL STELLJES Defense Atty: DEFENDER PUBLIC , ESq. MICHAEL STELLJES
MICHAEL STEELJES MICHAEL S STELLJES
Assigned Judge:
Charges: Count DUC# Crim.Action# Description Dispo. Dispo. Date 001 1801003194 MK18021369 sHoPLIFT <1500 DISM 07/30/2018 No Event Date Docket Add Date Judge Event 02/22/2018 02/22/2018
cAsE FILED oN 02/21/2018; ARREST DATE 01/09/2018 ARRAIGNMENT sCHEDULED FoR 04/25/2018 AT 01:00 PM
RELEASED/OWN RECOG. 0.00 MK18021369 DE11084000A1 SHOPLIFT <1500 04/24/2018 04/24/2018 ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/25/2018 AT 09:00 AM 04/24/2018 04/24/2018
CASE MOVED TO ANOTHER CALENDAR FOR CONSOLIDATION/JUDICIAL REVIEW PURPOSES
04/27/2018 04/27/2018 DEFENDANT PLED NOT GUILTY AND DEMANDED JURY TRIAL. 04/27/2018 04/27/2018
JURY TRIAL CASE REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR 06/20/2018
AT 09:00 AM
06/13/2018 06/13/2018 CASE MOVED TO ANOTHER CALENDAR FOR CONSOLIDATION/JUDICIAL REVIEW
PURPOSES
06/20/2018 06/20/2018 DEFENDANT REJECTED PLEA OFFER. 06/20/2018 06/20/2018 JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 07/30/2018 AT 09:00 AM 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 REIGLE ANNE HARTNETT CASE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 48(B) ON 7/30/18 AS TO 18-02-1369.
JUDGE/REIGLE DAG/K.SMITH PD/MATONI
*** END OF DOCKET LISTING AS OF 11/13/2018 *** PRINTED BY: CSCTSAN
“ EX\'\'\\)'\')' B"
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CRIMINAL DOCKET Page 1 ( as Of 11/13/2018 )
state of Delaware v. MICHAEL C STELLJES DOB: 09/09/1989 State'S Atty: , Esq. AKA: MICHAEL STELLJES Defense Atty: DEFENDER PUBLIC , ESq. MICHAEL STELLJES MICHAEL STEELJES MICHAEL S STELLJES Assigned Judge: Charges: Count DUC# Crim.Action# Description Dispo. Dispo. Date 001 1802008651 MK18021096 POSS DRUG PARAP NOLP 07/30/2018 No Event Date Docket Add Date Judge Event 02/20/2018 02/20/2018 CASE FILED oN 02/16/2018; ARREST DATE 02/13/2018 ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/25/2018 AT 01:00 PM RELEASED/OWN RECOG. 0.00 MK18021096 DE164771000a POSS DRUG PARAP 04/24/2018 04/24/2018 ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/25/2018 AT 09:00 AM 04/24/2018 04/24/2018 CASE MOVED TO ANOTHER CALENDAR FOR CONSOLIDATION/JUDICIAL REVIEW PURPOSES 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 DEFENDANT PLED NOT GUILTY AND DEMANDED JURY TRIAL. 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 JURY TRIAL CASE REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR 06/20/2018 AT 09:00 AM 06/20/2018 06/20/2018 DEFENDANT REJECTED PLEA OFFER. 06/20/2018 06/20/2018 JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 07/30/2018 AT 09:00 AM 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 REIGLE ANNE HARTNETT
NOLLE PROSEQUI ENTERED ON 7/30/18 AS TO 18-02-1096. JUDGE/REIGLE DAG/K.SMITH PD/MATONI
*** END OF DOCKET LISTING AS OF 11/13/2018 *** PRINTED BY: CSCTSAN
“Erh`\b‘\+ C"