Murphy v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JIMMY LEE MURPHY, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 228, 2001 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr.A. Nos. IK95-09-03650366 Submitted: October 26, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices ORDER This 10th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Jimmy Lee Murphy, filed this appeal from the April 24, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In this appeal, Murphy claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for postconviction relief because his ability to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was prejudiced by the loss of his file by the Office of the Public Defender. To the extent Murphy has not argued other grounds to support his appeal that were previously raised, those grounds are deemed waived and will not be addressed by this Court.1 (3) In May 1996, Murphy was found guilty by a Superior Court jury of Delivery of Cocaine and Maintaining a Dwelling for the Keeping of Controlled Substances. He was sentenced as an habitual offender2 to life in prison. This Court affirmed Murphy s convictions and sentences on direct appeal.3 (4) In March 1999, Murphy filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court referred to a Commissioner for proposed findings and a recommendation.4 After ordering a briefing schedule, the Commissioner was notified that Murphy s public defender had retired and was medically incapacitated and, moreover, that the Office of the Public Defender was unable to locate its file relating to Murphy s case. Murphy then filed a 1 Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (1993). In his motion for postconviction relief, Murphy also argued that: a) the State failed to properly establish the chain of custody; b) his counsel was ineffective; and c) the trial court committed error. 2 11 Del. C. § 4214(b). 3 Murphy v. State, Del. Supr., No. 388, 1996, Hartnett, J., 1997 WL 328603 (May 30, 1997) (ORDER). 4 10 Del. C. § 512(b). -2- modified motion for postconviction relief claiming he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ground that his ability to present his claim of ineffective assistance had been prejudiced by the absence of the file and his counsel s inability to respond to his claim.5 The Commissioner reviewed the original trial transcript as the best evidence of Murphy s counsel s performance and, on that basis, found that Murphy had not been prejudiced by his counsel s inability to respond, an evidentiary hearing was not necessary6 and Murphy s claim of ineffective assistance was meritless. The Superior Court adopted the findings of the Commissioner in its April 24, 2001 order denying Murphy s motion for postconviction relief. (5) Murphy s claim is without merit. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and there is no evidence of error or abuse of discretion either on the part of the Commissioner or on the part of the Superior Court judge. The Commissioner properly relied on the trial transcript to review Murphy s claim of ineffective assistance and properly exercised her discretion in determining that Murphy had not been prejudiced by his counsel s inability to respond and that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to decide 5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(g) (2). 6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h) (1) and (3). -3- Murphy s claims. There is also no evidence of any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court judge in adopting the findings of the Commissioner and her recommendation to deny Murphy s motion for postconviction relief.7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.8 BY THE COURT: /s/ E. Norman Veasey Chief Justice 7 10 Del. C. § 512(b). 8 Murphy s motion to strike the appellee s brief is denied. Supr. Ct. R. 34. -4-

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.