Johnson v. State, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JONATHAN JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE (DAG) ALLISON ABESSINIO, TIMOTHY WEILER, ESQ. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I.D. No. 1602004456A ORDER Submitted: May 26, 2020 Decided: August 14, 2020 Upon the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation that the (i) Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Should Be Dismissed; (ii) Petition for Evidentiary Hearing Should be Denied; and (iii) Motion to Stay Should be Denied, ADOPTED. Allison Abessinio, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for the State. Timothy Weiler, Esquire, Office of Defense Services, Wilmington, Delaware. Jonathan Johnson, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. Selfrepresented. MEDINILLA, J. 1 AND NOW TO WIT, this 14th day of August, 2020, upon consideration of Petitioner, Jonathan Johnson’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing, and Motion to Stay, the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 1. Petitioner was charged with multiple offenses, after law enforcement executed a search warrant of his home and located firearms, ammunition, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. 1 On January 27, 2017, with the assistance of counsel, Petitioner filed a Motion to Suppress. 2 On February 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing and denied the Motion to Suppress. 3 2. On April 25, 2017, the day of trial, Petitioner pled guilty to Drug Dealing (one count) and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF) (one count).4 As part of the agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. 3. On July 26, 2017, the State filed a Motion to Declare Johnson a Habitual Offender and to be sentenced on the PFDCF charge under 11 Del. C. § 1 On September 12, 2016, a Superior Court grand jury returned an indictment against the Petitioner for the following charges: Drug Dealing (two counts), Aggravated Possession (two counts), Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (two counts), Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (one count), Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (two counts), Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (two counts), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (four counts). 2 Johnson’s Motion to Suppress State of Delaware v. Jonathan Johnson, ID No. 1602004456A, D.I. 22 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2017) [hereinafter the Court will refer to docket numbers]. 3 Trial Calendar/ Suppression Hearing: Motion Denied, D.I. 29. 4 See Trial Calendar – Pled Guilty PSI Ordered, D.I. 39. 2 4214.5 On October 27, 2017, the Court granted the State’s motion,6 and sentenced Petitioner to the minimum mandatory twenty-five years at Level V for the PFDCF charge, and to probation for the Drug Dealing charge. 7 4. On October 17, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief (Rule 61) under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.8 Between October 2019 and January 2020, Petitioner also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this Court, 9 a Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing, 10 and a Motion to Stay the consideration of his Rule 61 Motion.11 During the pendency of his Rule 61 Motion, Petitioner also filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Delaware Supreme Court. On April 15, 2020, the Supreme Court denied his petition. 12 On May 14, 2020, the State filed responses to each of Petitioner’s pending motions. 5. This Court referred Petitioner’s pending motions 13 to Superior Court Commissioner, Katharine L. Mayer for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5).14 State’s Motion to Declare Johnson an Habitual Offender, D.I. 41; see 11 Del. C. § 4214. State’s Motion to Declare Johnson an Habitual Offender Granted, D.I. 42. 7 Sentencing Calendar: Johnson Sentenced, D.I. 41; see Sentence: ASOP Order Signed & Filed on 11/01/17, D.I. 43. 8 Johnson’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, D.I. 44. 9 Johnson’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, D.I. 75. 10 Johnson’s Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing, D.I. 78. 11 Johnson’s Motion to Stay, D.I. 81. 12 See Matter of Johnson, 228 A.3d 139, 2020 WL 1881069 (Del. 2020) (TABLE). 13 Johnson’s Rule 61 Motion, Johnson’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Johnson’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, and Johnson’s Motion to Stay. 14 See 10 Del. C. § 512(b)(1)(b) (2013 & Supp. 2016); DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(a)(5) (Under Delaware Superior Court Rule 62(a)(5), the Court may refer to a Superior Court Commissioner 5 6 3 On May 26, 2020, the Commissioner issued a Report, recommending that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus as meritless, and subsequently deny Petitioner’s Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing and Petitioner’s Motion to Stay.15 6. After the Commissioner issues a report, “any party may serve and file written objections” to the report within ten days. 16 A party failing to comply with this ten-day time limit for appeal may foreclose that party’s ability to object to the Commissioner’s report.17 On June 9, 2020, Petitioner filed an Amended Reply to the State’s Response to his Motion for Postconviction Relief. 18 The Court preliminarily reviews this filing as an appeal. 7. An objection or appeal to a Commissioner’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations must “set forth with particularity the basis for the objections.”19 In his Amended Reply, Petitioner references arguments presented in the State’s Responses to his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, 20 but fails to address case-dispositive motions, including postconviction relief motions, and the Commissioner must submit “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge, of any such matter.”). 15 Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations and Order, D.I. 92 [hereinafter “Comm’r Report”]. 16 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(a)(5)(ii). 17 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(b). 18 See Johnson’s Amended Reply, D.I. 93 [hereinafter “Pet.’s Amended Reply”]. 19 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 62(a)(5)(ii). 20 See Pet.’s Amended Reply at 2. 4 any of the Commissioner’s findings with particularity, 21 reiterating only prior arguments. 8. Since, Petitioner’s Amended Reply cannot be considered an objection to the Commissioner’s Report, 22 the Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings of fact or recommendations made by the Commissioner.” 23 9. The Court adopts in toto the findings of fact and recommendations in the Commissioner’s Report. For the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report, the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is DISSMISSED, and as such, the Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing and Motion to Stay are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Vivian L. Medinilla Vivian L. Medinilla Judge oc: Prothonotary cc: Defendant Department of Justice & Investigative Services See Pet.’s Amended Reply at 2. DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R 62(b) (“A party . . . appealing the findings of fact and recommendations of a Commissioner . . . who fails to comply with the provisions of this rule may be subject to dismissal of said . . . appeal.”). 23 DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R 62(a)(5)(ii). 21 22 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.