State v. Finney

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) Cr. ID. No. 1802014360
)
)
MELVIN W. FINNEY, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: April 3, 2025
Decided: August 18, 2025

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
SHOULD BE DENIED
AND
RULE 61 COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW SHOULD BE
GRANTED
AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BE EXONERATED
SHOULD BE DENIED

Dianna A Dunn, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

Benjamin S. Gifford IV, Esquire, The Law Office of Benjamin S. Gifford IV,
Attorney for Defendant Melvin W. Finney.

SALOMONE, Commissioner
This 18th day of August, 2025, upon consideration of the Amended Motion

for Postconviction Relief filed by Defendant Melvin W. Finney (“Finney” or

“Defendant”),1 the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and Memorandum of Law in

support thereof,2 Defendant’s Responses to the Motion to Withdraw,3 Defendant’s

Motion to further supplement the Amended Motion,4 Defendant’s Motion to be

Exonerated,5 and the record in this matter, the following is my Report and

Recommendation.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Finney was arrested on February 22, 2018, and charged with multiple offenses

relating to allegations of sexual abuse made by two of his minor granddaughters, ZG

and AG.6 The Defendant was initially indicted on July 30, 2018 and then reindicted

on March 4, 2019 and charged with the following offenses: (i) seven (7) counts of

First Degree Sexual Abuse of a Child by a Person in a Position of Trust; (ii) four (4)

counts of Rape in the First Degree; (iii) two (2) counts of Continuous Sexual Abuse

1
State v. Melvin Finney, Delaware Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID No. 1802014360 at 80
(hereinafter, “D.I. __”). The Defendant filed the Amended Motion after his conviction was
affirmed. As such, the Court determined to treat the Amended Motion as Finney’s first, timely
motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Rule 61. D.I. 83.
2
D.I. 95-97, 100, 102. All references to the Appendix to Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Withdraw provided by Rule 61 Counsel are hereinafter referred to as “A___”).
3
D.I. 114, 120, 133.
4
D.I. 123-124.
5
D.I. 134.
6
See D.I. 1. Adult Complaint and Warrant, dated February 22, 2018. The initials of the minors
will be used throughout this Report and Recommendation in lieu of their names.
1
of a Child; (iv) two (2) counts of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree; and

(v) one (1) count of Attempted Sexual Abuse of a Child.7 These charges stemmed

from allegations of sexual abuse which occurred from approximately 2014 to 2017.8

On May 6, 2019, at his final case review, the Defendant waived his right to a

jury trial and elected instead to proceed with a bench trial before The Honorable

Abigail M. LeGrow.9 Prior to the presentation of evidence, the State entered a nolle

prosequi on two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child and one count of Rape in the

First Degree.10 The State also moved to amend one count of Sexual Abuse of a Child

to shorten the time period of the alleged charge from June 1, 2014 to August 31,

2014, which the Court granted.11 Trial commenced on May 14, 2019 with the State

proceeding on the remaining charges.

Following the two-day bench trial, on May 16, 2019, the Court found the

Defendant guilty of three (3) counts of Sexual Abuse of a Child, two (2) counts of

Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree, one (1) count of Rape in the First

Degree, and one (1) count of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child.12 The Court

acquitted the Defendant of all remaining charges.13

7
D.I. 3; D.I. 30.
8
Id.
9
D.I. 85. Final Case Review Transcript, dated May 6, 2019, at 2-8.
10
D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 3-4.
11
Id. at 5-6.
12
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 93-94.
13
Id.
2
On September 20, 2019, Finney was sentenced to an aggregate of 131 years

of incarceration, suspended after 115 years for decreasing levels of supervision.14

On or about October 10, 2019, Finney filed two motions—a timely, pro se Motion

for Modification of Sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 and a

direct appeal of his conviction to the Delaware Supreme Court.15 This Court deferred

decision on the Motion for Modification of Sentence until resolution of Finney’s

direct appeal.16

After a conscientious examination of the record and the law, Finney’s

appointed appellate counsel filed a non-merit brief and motion to withdraw in

accordance with Supreme Court Rule 26(c).17 Counsel informed Finney of his right

to submit points for the Supreme Court’s consideration on appeal, but he failed to

do so.18 On June 3, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court found Finney’s appeal to be

wholly without merit and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.19

On September 25, 2020, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion for

Modification of Sentence.20 In doing so, the Court explained that Finney’s sentence

14
D.I. 62; D.I. 72. Sentencing Transcript, dated September 20, 2019, at 1-7.
15
D.I. 65-66.
16
D.I. 69.
17
A430-447.
18
A443-444; see also Finney v. State, 2020 WL 2945073, at *1 (Del. 2020).
19
Finney v. State, 2020 WL 2945073 (Del. 2020).
20
D.I. 82.
3
did not exceed the minimum mandatory period of incarceration the Court was

statutorily required to impose.21

FACTS

The facts of this case were set forth over the course of a two-day trial and

evidence a pattern of sexual abuse by the Defendant that occurred over the course of

several years. In November of 2017, ZG revealed to her great-grandmother for the

first time that the Defendant had been sexually abusing her since she was nine years

old.22 ZG, who was thirteen years old when she confided in her great-grandmother,

stated that her grandfather had been “messing with her” and touching her breasts.23

ZG recalled a specific incident when she was nine years old when the Defendant

brought her into the basement of his home on the East Side and made her perform

oral sex on him.24 ZG testified that the encounter ceased after “something came in

[her] mouth,” which she spit out prior to returning upstairs.25 ZG further testified

that the Defendant told her that if she spoke to anyone about the incident “something

was going to happen.”26 ZG stated that she did not tell anyone about the incident

because she was scared.27 ZG recalled being forced to perform oral sex two

21
Id.
22
D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 20-22. ZG was born on March 24, 2005. Id.
at 39.
23
Id. at 21, 33-35.
24
Id. at 39-49.
25
Id. at 49.
26
Id.
27
Id. at 50.
4
additional times in the East Side residence when she was in fifth grade.28 ZG testified

that on one of those two occasions her grandfather made both her and her cousin,

AG, participate.29

ZG described another incident that occurred when she was in sixth grade when

the Defendant made her again perform oral sex on him in the basement of her

grandparents’ home in New Castle.30 ZG testified that it was also around that time

that the Defendant “really. . .started touching on my breasts because that’s when I

started growing.”31 She recalled a time when she was watching television in the

Defendant’s bedroom and he touched her breast and placed it into his mouth.32 She

also recalled a time in the New Castle residence when Finney asked her to touch his

exposed penis and she abided his request.33

Like ZG, AG revealed similar sexual abuse that she had suffered at the hand

of her grandfather in November of 2017.34 AG testified that the Defendant forced

her to perform oral sex in his East Side home when she was either nine or ten years

old.35 Specifically, she recalled her grandfather coming into her room while she was

28
Id. at 56-59, 71-73.
29
Id. at 71-73.
30
Id. at 50-51, 56-58.
31
Id. at 53.
32
Id. at 53-55.
33
Id. at 67, 69-70.
34
Id. at 109-110.
35
Id. at 130-133.
5
dressing, pulling down his pants and demanding she perform fellatio.36 AG stated

that she initially refused and threatened to tell her parents, but the Defendant told her

that no one would believe her and that she would be in trouble if she failed to

comply.37 Thereafter, the Defendant forced her head down and made her engage in

oral sex.38

AG also testified regarding a second incident that occurred in the East Side

residence during the summer of 2015 after she had completed fifth grade. 39 On that

occasion, AG recalled that she was watching a movie in her grandparents’ bedroom

when the Defendant went to the bathroom and, upon his return, demanded she again

perform oral sex.40 AG said that Finney told her she would be beaten if she did not

comply.41 AG testified that she was nine or ten years old at the time of the incident.42

AG further testified regarding a third incident which occurred in the New

Castle residence when she and ZG were sleeping in the attic.43 AG stated that the

Defendant came behind her and tried to reach into her pants to touch her vagina.44

She stated that she attempted to wake up ZG, but that the Defendant said not to

36
Id. at 131-132.
37
Id. at 132.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 138-142.
40
Id.
41
Id. at 140.
42
Id. at 142.
43
Id. at 143, 145-146.
44
Id.
6
bother her.45 AG stated that the Defendant once again tried to force her to perform

fellatio but she ran downstairs to sleep with her older cousin.46

AG also testified regarding an incident which occurred during the summer of

2016 when she went down to the basement of her grandparents’ house and found

ZG on her knees in front of the Defendant with his pants down. 47 She noted that

although his boxers were still on at the time, she could see his exposed penis through

the fly of his underwear.48 She further testified that Finney attempted to pull up his

pants quickly when AG came downstairs and that ZG ran upstairs crying. 49

Finney’s wife of twenty-one years, Marlene, testified at trial that she became

aware that something had occurred between the Defendant and her granddaughters

in November of 2017.50 She confronted Finney about the allegations, and he stated

that while they were living at the East Side residence he woke up on one occasion to

find AG on top of him with her mouth on his penis.51 Marlene testified that Finney

stated he never told anyone about the incident because he was embarrassed and did

not know what to do.52 Marlene also testified regarding certain recorded

conversations she had with Finney while he was incarcerated pending trial in which

45
Id.
46
Id. at 143-144, 146-147.
47
Id. at 153-154.
48
Id. at 154.
49
Id. at 153-154.
50
Id. at 200, 204-205.
51
Id. at 205-207.
52
Id. at 207.
7
the Defendant stated there were two incidents with ZG and AG.53 Finney also stated

that he “would have taken it to his grave but then ZG came out with it.”54

Finney testified in his own defense at trial.55 He stated that one morning ZG

and AG came into his bedroom when he was asleep and that when he awoke AG

was on top of him with her mouth on his penis.56 He stated that ZG also put her

mouth on his penis.57 The Defendant said he told his granddaughters to leave the

room and to never do that again.58 He denied initiating any sexual contact with either

of his granddaughters and stated that he intended to take the incident to his grave. 59

RULE 61 MOTION AND COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

Finney filed a timely pro se motion for postconviction relief and request for

the appointment of counsel on March 6, 2020.60 On June 26, 2020, he filed a motion

for leave to amend his pro se motion for postconviction relief.61 On September 16,

2020, the Defendant filed an amended pro se motion for postconviction relief.62 On

September 25, 2020, the Court granted Finney’s motion for the appointment of

counsel and confirmed that his amended pro se motion for postconviction relief was

53
Id. at 214.
54
Id.
55
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 40-69.
56
Id. at 43-44.
57
Id. at 48.
58
Id. at 44.
59
Id. at 44-45.
60
D.I. 75-76.
61
D.I. 77-78.
62
D.I. 80.
8
timely, rendering his motion for leave to amend moot.63 Rule 61 counsel was

appointed on or about September 24, 2021 and given leave to amend Finney’s pro

se motion until November 30, 2021.64 Rule 61 counsel sought an extension to file

an amended motion for postconviction relief or motion to withdraw until February

28, 2022, which the Court granted on December 2, 2021.65

On February 25, 2022, assigned counsel filed a motion seeking to stay the

proceedings until such time as all recorded statements of various witness interviews

could be transcribed.66 On March 1, 2022, the Court granted the motion to stay

proceedings and directed assigned counsel to notify the Court and the State when

the transcripts were complete and to file an amended motion for postconviction relief

or motion to withdraw within sixty (60) days of completion of the transcripts.67 On

October 28, 2022, assigned counsel notified the Court that the transcriptions had

been completed.68 On December 28, 2022, assigned counsel requested another

extension to file an amended motion for postconviction relief or motion to withdraw,

which the Court granted the same day.69

63
D.I. 81, 83-84.
64
D.I. 89.
65
D.I. 89-90.
66
D.I. 91-92.
67
D.I. 93.
68
D.I. 94.
69
D.I. 98.
9
On January 3, 2023, assigned counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as

Postconviction Counsel pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(6).70 In the

Motion to Withdraw, Finney’s Rule 61 counsel represented that, after undertaking a

thorough analysis of the Defendant’s claims, counsel had determined that the claims

were so lacking in merit that counsel could not ethically advocate any of them.71

Counsel further represented that, following a thorough review of the record, counsel

was not aware of any other substantial claim for relief available to Finney.72

Finney’s Rule 61 counsel represented to the Court that there were no potential

meritorious grounds on which to base a Rule 61 motion and therefore sought to

withdraw as counsel.73

On January 12, 2023, the Court filed an amended scheduling order allowing

Finney to file a response to Rule 61 counsel’s Motion to Withdraw by no later than

February 13, 2023, if he desired to do so.74 Through various motions and

correspondence filed in February and March of 2023, Finney requested an extension

70
D.I. 96-97. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(6) provides as follows: If counsel considers
the movant’s claim to be so lacking in merit that counsel cannot ethically advocate it, and counsel
is not aware of any other substantial ground for relief available to the movant, counsel may move
to withdraw. The motion shall explain the factual and legal basis for counsel’s opinion and shall
give notice that the movant may file a response to the motion within 30 days of service of the
motion upon the movant.
71
D.I. 100. Defendant’s Rule 61 counsel’s Motion to Withdraw along with the accompanying
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Withdraw.
72
Id.
73
Id.
74
See D.I. 103.
10
to respond to counsel’s Motion to Withdraw.75 On April 3, 2023, the Court extended

the deadline for Finney to respond to August 3, 2023.76 Finney filed his response to

Rule 61 counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on June 26, 2023.77

On July 5, 2023, Finney submitted a Motion to Compel Discovery from Rule

61 counsel and the State of Delaware (the “Motion for Discovery”).78 Finney filed

another letter on July 7, 2023,79 and a motion for an evidentiary hearing on his Rule

61 counsel’s Motion to Withdraw.80 On July 25, 2023, Finney filed another motion

for an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 61 motion.81

On October 30, 2023, the Court denied the Motion for Discovery.82 On that

same day, Finney filed another response to the Motion to Withdraw by way of a

letter which purports to raise additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

and attached more than one hundred pages of annotated docket entries, letters and

transcripts.83 On November 27, 2023, the Court filed a supplemental briefing

75
D.I. 104-108.
76
D.I. 109-110. On April 25, 2023 and June 8, 2023, Finney filed two additional letters, detailing
concerns about his Rule 61 counsel and discovery that he allegedly had not been provided. D.I.
111, 113.
77
D.I. 114.
78
D.I. 115.
79
D.I. 116.
80
D.I. 117.
81
D.I. 118.
82
D.I. 119.
83
D.I. 120.
11
schedule requesting that Defendant’s trial counsel and the State respond to the

allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.84

Once again, on January 4 and 30, 2024, Finney filed additional motions to

amend his Rule 61 motion.85 Trial counsel filed a response to Finney’s Rule 61

motion on August 30, 2024.86 The State responded to Defendant’s postconviction

relief motions on October 25, 2024.87 Defendant filed his reply on January 30,

2025.88 Thereafter, Finney filed a Motion to be Exonerated on April 3, 2025.89 In

addition to the request to be exonerated, Finney responded further to Rule 61

counsel’s Motion to Withdraw and trial counsel’s affidavit.90

APPLICABLE LAW FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

Rule 61 and Procedural Bars to Relief

Rule 61 governs the procedures by which an incarcerated individual may seek

to have his conviction set aside on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction or

any other ground that is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a collateral attack

upon the conviction.91 That is, it is a means by which the court may correct

84
D.I. 122. The Supplemental Briefing Schedule was further amended on June 20, 2024. D.I.
126.
85
D.I. 123-124.
86
D.I. 127.
87
D.I. 131.
88
D.I. 133.
89
D.I. 134.
90
Id.
91
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1).
12
Constitutional infirmities in a conviction or sentence.92 “Rule 61 is intended to

correct errors in the trial process, not allow defendants unlimited opportunities to

relitigate their convictions.”93

Given that intent, before considering the merits of any claims for

postconviction relief, the Court must first determine whether there are any

procedural bars to the Rule 61 Motion.94 Rule 61(i) establishes four procedural bars

to postconviction relief.95 Rule 61(i)(1) requires that a motion for postconviction

relief must be filed within one year of a final judgement or conviction. 96 Rule

61(i)(2) bars successive motions for postconviction relief unless certain conditions

are met.97 Pursuant to Rule 61(i)(3) and (4), any ground for relief that was not

previously raised is deemed waived, and any claims that were formerly adjudicated,

whether in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, in an appeal, in a

postconviction proceeding, or in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, are thereafter

barred.98 However, ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised at any

92
Harris v. State, 410 A.2d 500 (Del. 1970).
93
Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013).
94
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
95
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4).
96
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).
97
Rule 61(i)(2) bars successive or subsequent motions for postconviction relief unless the movant
is able to “plead with particularity” that (i) “new evidence exists that creates a strong inference
that the movant is actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was
convicted” or (ii) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case
and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.” Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
98
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) and (d)(2)(i), (ii).
13
earlier stage in the proceedings and are properly presented in a motion for

postconviction relief.99 The aforementioned procedural bars to relief do not apply to

a claim that the court lacked jurisdiction.100

This is Defendant’s first motion for postconviction relief and it was timely

filed within one year of when his conviction became final.101 Rule 61(i)(2) does not

apply here because this is Defendant’s first postconviction relief motion. 102 And,

with one exception, Finney’s claims involve allegations of ineffective assistance of

counsel, which could not have been previously raised and are not subject to default

because they cannot be asserted in proceedings leading to judgment of conviction

nor raised on direct appeal.103

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims under Strickland

In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the

defendant must satisfy the two-prong standard set forth in Strickland v.

Washington.104 This test requires the defendant to show: (a) counsel’s deficient

99
Sabb v. State, 2021 WL 2229631, at *1 (Del. 2021); Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160, 187-188
(Del. 2020); Whittle v. State, 2016 WL 2585904, at *3 (Del. 2016); State v. Evan-Mayes, 2016
WL 4502303, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
100
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5).
101
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1) (motion must be filed within one year of when conviction
becomes final); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(2) (if the defendant files a direct appeal, the judgment
of conviction becomes final when the mandate is issued).
102
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(2).
103
State v. Jackson, 2023 WL 4104290, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. 2023)
104
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
14
performance, i.e., that his attorney’s performance “fell below an objective standard

of reasonableness,”105 and (b) prejudice.

The first prong requires the defendant to show by a preponderance of the

evidence that defense counsel was not reasonably competent.106 Judicial scrutiny

under the first prong is highly deferential. Courts must ignore the distorting effects

of hindsight and proceed with a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was

reasonable.107 The Strickland Court explained that a court deciding an actual

ineffectiveness claim must judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct

on the facts of the particular case, viewed at the time of counsel’s conduct.108

Under the second prong, in order to establish prejudice, the movant must show

that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,

the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a

probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.”109 In other

words, not every error that conceivably could have influenced the outcome

undermines the reliability of the result of the proceeding.110 The court must consider

the totality of the evidence and must ask if the movant has met the burden of showing

that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the

105
Id. at 688.
106
Id. at 687-88, 694.
107
Id. at 689.
108
Id. at 690.
109
Id. at 694.
110
Id. at 693.
15
errors.111 “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether

counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process

that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.”112

The burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel is on the defendant.113

Mere allegations of ineffectiveness or conclusory statements will not suffice;

instead, a defendant must make and substantiate concrete allegations of actual

prejudice.114 The court must be persuaded that the alleged errors were so serious that

counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed to the defendant by the

Sixth Amendment.115 The test is not whether the defendant can demonstrate that the

error had some “conceivable effect” on the outcome but rather whether the error

undermined the reliability of the result of the proceeding.116

Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding

and leads to a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within a wide range of

reasonable professional assistance.117 Moreover, there is a strong presumption that

111
Dale v. State, 2017 WL 443705, * 2 (Del. 2017); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 695-
96 (1984).
112
Cooke v. State, 977 A.2d 803, 840 (Del. 2009) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686). Because
the showing of prejudice is so central to any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the
Strickland Court made clear that “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course
should be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
113
Oliver v. State, 2001 WL 1751246 (Del. 2001).
114
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990).
115
State v. Gonzalez, 2019 WL 1762976, *1 (Del. 2019).
116
Id.
117
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988); Salih v. State, 2008 WL 4762323, at *1 (Del.
2008).
16
defense counsel’s conduct constituted sound trial strategy.118 While counsel has a

duty to make “reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes

particular investigations unnecessary. . .a particular decision not to investigate must

be directly assessed for reasonableness in all circumstances, applying a heavy

measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.”119

FINNEY’S CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Finney raised a number of claims in his pro se motion for postconviction

relief, which he initially filed on March 6, 2020,120 and then amended on September

16, 2020121 (the “First Amended Motion”). In his First Amended Motion, Finney

asserts the following six ineffective assistance of counsel claims:

Claim 1: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Request an Instruction

Regarding a Lesser Included Offense. In his first claim, Finney alleges that his

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the elements of

Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree as a lesser included offense of First

Degree Rape.122

Claim 2: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Request a Bill of Particulars.

In his second claim, Finney argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

118
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (1984).
119
Id. at 691.
120
D.I. 75.
121
D.I. 80.
122
Id.
17
file a motion for a Bill of Particulars, which was necessary to allow him to

differentiate between the various charges and properly defend against them.123

Finney further argues that the failure to have a Bill of Particulars undermined the

reliability of the verdict.124

Claim 3: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Object to Leading Questions.

In his third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Finney states the following:

“During [trial,] as the transcripts support[,] the State clearly leads witnesses to testify

by asking and then answering her questions. When defendant repeatedly asked

counsel to object, counsel replied that he would do so during ‘closing

arguments.’”125

Claim 4: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Object to Testimony Regarding

Prior Bad Acts. Finney asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

object to testimony regarding a domestic incident between the Defendant and his

wife, which Finney claims “prejudice[d] the defendant[’s] character.”126

Claim 5: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Investigate Facts. Finney

contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the dates when

he was living at the two properties where the criminal activity allegedly occurred.127

123
Id.
124
Id.
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Id.
18
Claim 6: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the Indictment.

Finney asserts that “[t]rial [c]ounsel failed to challenge [the] indictment. It is unclear

from the charges as indicted whether the State was referencing separate incidents.

Because the defendant had two different victims.”128

On January 30, 2024, Finney further supplemented his First Amended Motion

by alleging four additional claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and one claim

of prosecutorial misconduct (the “Second Amended Motion, and together with the

First Amended Motion, the “Amended Motion”).129 These claims can be fairly

summarized as follows:

Claim 7: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the Affidavit of

Probable Cause. Finney claims that his affidavit of probable cause was defective

and/or inappropriately altered because it presented differing dates and information

throughout and there were irregularities in the signatures and seals, which trial

counsel should have challenged.130

Claim 8: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge Inconsistencies in the

Victims’ Statements. Finney argues that trial counsel failed to effectively cross

128
Id.
129
D.I. 124.
130
Id. See also D.I. 85. Final Case Review Transcript, dated May 6, 2019, at 10-12.
19
examine the victims by not pointing out the inconsistencies between the statements

they made to investigators and those they made at trial.131

Claim 9: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Share Discovery Materials.

Finney alleges that trial counsel failed to provide him with his discovery before trial

which prevented him from assisting in his defense.132 In particular, Finney alleges

ZG made multiple statements before trial which he did not receive until after trial.133

Claim 10: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the Court’s Verdict.

Finney asserts that both his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective because they

failed to challenge the court’s verdict, which Finney claims went against the weight

of the evidence presented at trial.134 According to Finney, he was erroneously

convicted of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child “even though the witness testified

to only one incident.”135

Claim 11: The State Knowingly Used False Testimony. Finney contends that

“[t]he state knowingly used false testimony. During trial the state’s witnesses made

statements that differed from their previous statements that went unchecked or

questioned by the state.”136

131
D.I. 124.
132
Id.
133
Id.
134
D.I. 124.
135
Id.
136
Id.
20
DEFENDANT’S POSTCONVICTION CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
For the reasons discussed below, each of Defendant’s claims are without

merit.

Claim 1: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Request an Instruction
Regarding a Lesser Included Offense.

In his Amended Motion, Finney claims that trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to request that the trier of fact be instructed on the elements of Unlawful

Sexual Contact in the First Degree137 as a lesser-included offense of Rape in the First

Degree.138 This claim is without merit.

As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Allison v. State,139 “[i]n order to

be entitled to an instruction of a lesser-included offense, a defendant must

demonstrate the existence of ‘some evidence that would allow the jury to rationally

acquit the defendant on the greater charge and convict on the lesser charge.’” 140 In

Allison, the defendant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

request a jury instruction on the elements of second degree robbery as a lesser-

137
11 Del. C. §769 sets forth the elements of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree and
provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) A person is guilty of unlawful sexual contact in the first
degree when: . . . (3) The person intentionally has sexual contact with another person who is less
than 13 years of age or causes the victim to have sexual contact with the person or a third person.
138
11 Del. C. §773 sets forth the elements of Rape in the First Degree and provides, in pertinent
part, as follows: (a) A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when the person intentionally
engages in sexual intercourse with another person and any of the following circumstances exist: .
. . (5) The victim has not yet reached that victim’s twelfth birthday, and the defendant has reached
that defendant’s eighteenth birthday. 11 Del. C. §761(h)(2), in turn, defines “sexual intercourse”
to include, inter alia, any act of cunnilingus or fellatio regardless of whether penetration occurs.
139
Allison v. State, 2010 WL 3733919 (Del. 2010).
140
Id. at *1 (citing Henry v. State, 805 A.2d 860, 864 (Del. 2002)).
21
included offense of first degree robbery.141 However, Allison’s defense at trial was

that he was not present at the robbery.142 The Court found that an instruction on the

lesser-included offense of second degree robbery would have been entirely

inconsistent with his defense of not being present at the crime scene.143 As such, the

Supreme Court found no basis for the defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective

for not requesting such an instruction.144

In the case at hand, Finney’s defense at trial included, among other things,

that he took no overt actions to intentionally commit any of the sexual offenses

against his granddaughters for which he was accused. Rather, he argued that he was

the victim of inappropriate advances made by the two minor children. As in Allison,

an instruction regarding the lesser-included offense of Unlawful Sexual Contact in

the First Degree would have been entirely inconsistent with Finney’s defense at trial

as both Rape in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree

require an intentional act.145

Moreover, no evidence was established at trial that would allow the trier of

fact to rationally acquit the Defendant on the greater charge of Rape in the First

Degree and convict on the lesser charge of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First

141
Id.
142
Id.
143
Id.
144
Id.
145
Compare 11 Del. C. § 769(a)(3) with 11 Del. C. § 773(a)(5).
22
Degree. The Defendant was only convicted of one charge of Rape in the First

Degree, which was Count VIII of the indictment.146 Count VIII alleged the

following:

MELVIN FINNEY, on or between the 25th day of March
2014, and the 24th day of March 2015, in the County of
New Castle, State of Delaware, did intentionally have
sexual contact with Z.G., a child who had not yet reached
said victim’s twelfth birthday and the defendant had
reached the defendant’s eighteenth birthday, to wit the
defendant intentionally engaged in fellatio with the
victim.147

At trial, ZG testified that she turned nine years old on March 24, 2014, and

that she was nine or ten years old when Finney made her perform fellatio.148 Fellatio

is statutorily enumerated as an act of sexual intercourse and not sexual contact. 149

There was no evidence presented during trial that any other sexual conduct150

146
See D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 93-94.
147
D.I. 30. Rule 61 counsel notes that Count VIII does not properly enumerate the required
elements of Rape in the First Degree as it appears to refer to “sexual contact” as opposed to “sexual
intercourse.” However, the charge goes on to make clear that the sexual contact Finney is accused
of is the act of fellatio, which by statute is defined as sexual intercourse. Rule 61 counsel concludes
that verbiage error is ultimately a distinction without a difference and caused no prejudice to the
Defendant. The Court concurs.
148
D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 40, 45-50.
149
See 11 Del. C. § 761(h)(2).
150
Sexual Contact is defined under 11 Del. C. § 761(g)(1) to mean any of the following
touching, if the touching, under the circumstances as viewed by a reasonable person, is intended
to be sexual in nature:
a. Any intentional touching by the defendant of the anus, breast, buttocks, or genitalia of
another person.
b. Any intentional touching of another person with the defendant’s anus, breast, buttocks,
semen, or genitalia.
c. Intentionally causing or allowing another person to touch the defendant’s anus, breast,
buttocks, or genitalia.
23
occurred during that particular encounter between the Defendant and ZG that would

support the finding of the lesser-included offense of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the

First Degree.

In light of the foregoing, trial counsel could not be ineffective for failing to

request an instruction regarding the lesser-included offense of Unlawful Sexual

Contact in the First Degree.

Claims 2 and 6: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the
Indictment and/or Request a Bill of Particulars.

Claims 2 and 6 are allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that

question the specificity and clarity of the indictment and assert that counsel was

ineffective for challenging it or otherwise failing to file a motion for a Bill of

Particulars.151 For the reasons discussed below, these claims are without merit.

Superior Court Criminal Rule 7(c)(1) requires an indictment to set forth “a

plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the

offense charged.”152 The function of an indictment under Delaware law is “to put the

151
Finney’s argument regarding trial counsel’s failure to challenge the indictment becomes
somewhat more nuanced in his later filings. Finney seems to take issue with the additional charges
set forth in the reindictment, which he states were based on the victim interviews conducted at the
Child Advocacy Center (“CAC”) after his initial indictment on February 22, 2018. D.I. 134 at 8.
According to Finney, ZG “changed her story” prompting the reindictment and the additional
charges but asserts that the testimony was inconsistent and/or false and, as such, trial counsel
should have challenged the reindictment on that basis. Id. The Court will address Finney’s
arguments regarding the CAC interviews and such allegedly false testimony when discussing
Claims 8 and 11.
152
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 7(c)(1).
24
accused on full notice of what he is called upon to defend, and to effectively preclude

subsequent prosecution for the same offense.”153 It is a defendant’s burden to move

for a bill of particulars where the defendant is “uncertain of what specific conduct

he [is] being prosecuted for” in an indictment. 154

In Luttrell v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court was confronted with an

appeal by a defendant who was convicted of multiple sex offenses whose motion for

a bill of particulars was denied by the Superior Court.155 The Luttrell defendant

claimed “the indictment did not clearly delineate the acts for which he was being

prosecuted or when they occurred, and therefore it did not allow him to adequately

prepare a defense or protect him from double jeopardy.”156 The defendant asserted

that “he was charged with multiple counts of the same general offense and the

indictment did not contain sufficient facts to differentiate each count from others of

the same type.”157 The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in denying the

motion for a bill of particulars, pointing out that “there is nothing in the indictment

that allows anyone to distinguish the separate conduct that supposedly underlies each

of the three counts.”158

153
Luttrell v. State, 97 A.3d 70, 76 (Del. 2014).
154
Id.
155
97 A.3d 70, 71 (Del. 2014).
156
Id.
157
Luttrell, 97 A.3d at 73.
158
Id.
25
The issues present in Luttrell, however, are not present here. In this case, the

charges in the indictment and reindictment specifically outline what conduct was

alleged to have occurred with respect to each victim within a particular time frame.159

Trial counsel and Finney were provided with notice as to the precise allegations, as

indicated by reference to each of the two victims in varying charges and precise

descriptions of the sexual conduct alleged.160 Further, this Court, sitting as the trier

of fact, clearly understood what conduct was alleged in each count and gave due

consideration to each charge before rendering a decision, as evidenced by Finney

being acquitted of six offenses.161 In view of the foregoing, there was no basis for

trial counsel to challenge the reindictment since it clearly delineated the acts for

which Finney was being prosecuted and when they occurred. The Court cannot see

how Finney was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to request a Bill of Particulars or

otherwise challenge the indictments. As such, Claims 2 and 6 are without merit.

Claim 7: Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the Affidavit of
Probable Cause.

Finney claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the

affidavit of probable cause. Finney asserts that the detective that filed the warrant

159
See D.I. 30.
160
Id.
161
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 93-94.
26
in his case “blatantly altered” the paperwork,162 and that the warrants differ in dates

and times and lack signatures and seals.163

As a threshold matter, although Claim 7 is couched as a claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel, the Court notes that Finney did not raise any claims regarding

the validity of the search warrant or affidavit of probable cause on direct appeal.

Based on the record in this case, any such claim on direct appeal was unlikely to be

found to have merit as the Court squarely addressed Finney’s claim regarding trial

counsel’s failure to challenge the affidavit of probable cause at Finney’s final case

review.164 After raising his concerns regarding certain perceived irregularities

surrounding the search warrant with the Court, the following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: So, Mr. Finney, and you’ve presented this
to Mr. Wilkinson, and the complaint is Mr. Wilkinson
doesn’t believe this is a basis to challenge the search
warrant.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: Okay. But this is what I will tell you: It’s
Mr. Wilkinson’s decision as your trial counsel to decide
whether or not there is a sufficient basis to challenge
evidence, including whether or not the search warrant
properly was executed. I think, if I can guess as to what
he's telling you, that he’s probably right in not pursuing a
motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the
warrant. What I am looking at I doubt would be a basis to
162
D.I. 85. Final Case Review Transcript, dated May 6, 2019, at 10-12.
163
D.I. 133 at 3. The Court notes that, as with Claims 2 and 9, Finney similarly asserts that the
substance of the affidavits is based on false testimony because the victim’s statements were
inconsistent over time.
164
D.I. 85. Final Case Review Transcript, dated May 6, 2019, at 10-12.
27
suppress the warrant. But in any event, it’s Mr.
Wilkinson’s decision as counsel to pursue. Although I
understand your frustration, I’m going to hand it back to
you, Mr. Finney.

MR. WILKINSON: Yes, Your Honor. The State isn’t
presenting anything that was from the basis of that
anyway, the search warrant.

THE COURT: Okay. So, even if Mr. Wilkinson, Mr.
Finney, was to file a motion to suppress, none of the
evidence the State intends to present was obtained through
the warrant, so that motion essentially would be moot.
There really wouldn’t be much point of it. . . .165

In his affidavit, trial counsel reaffirmed that he had no basis for challenging

the affidavit of probable cause.166 Given that the State did not present any evidence

at trial obtained through the warrant, Finney cannot demonstrate prejudice as a result

of trial counsel’s failure to challenge the warrant, rendering Claim 7 meritless under

Strickland.

Claim 3, 4, and 8: Counsel was Ineffective for Failing to Object to Leading
Questions, to Object to Testimony Regarding Prior Bad Acts, and to
Challenge Inconsistencies in Victims’ statements.

Claims 3, 4, and 8 set forth allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel

regarding trial counsel’s decision not to object to, or challenge certain testimony.

These claims are also without merit.

165
Id. at 11-12.
166
D.I. 127.
28
In Claim 3, Finney asserts that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to

object to leading questions posed by the State. However, the record demonstrates

that trial counsel did object to leading questions posed by the State on multiple

occasions.167 Those objections were sustained and the State rephrased the

question.168 It is within trial counsel’s strategic purview to determine when an

objection is appropriate. Finney has not established how trial counsel’s failure to

object to every leading question resulted in any prejudice toward Finney or that there

is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different

had trial counsel objected more.169 Moreover, any alleged prejudice to Finney due

to leading questions by the State was ameliorated by the nature of his bench trial,

where the dangers posed by leading questions are considerably diminished.170

In Claim 4, Finney alleges that trial counsel’s failure to object when the State

presented testimony of a domestic incident between the Defendant and his wife

prejudiced his character. While there was testimony of this nature, it was not offered

as character evidence.171 Janai Clark, AG’s mother, discussed the incident only for

purposes of explaining how unusual it was for her daughter to call her early in the

167
See D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 36, 55, 151, 153, 155.
168
Id.
169
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
170
McMullen v. State, 253 A.3d 107, 117 n.41 (Del. 2021) (“A court hearing a bench trial may
relax the rules of evidence to err on the side of admissibility, as jury confusion in that context is
not a concern.”) (quoting City of Wilmington v. Flamer, 2013 WL 4829585, 6 (Del. Super. Ct.
2013).
171
See D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 105-106.
29
morning and tell her that she needed to be picked up.172 A second instance where

AG had called her mother early in the morning to be picked up from her

grandparent’s house was related to one of AG’s allegations of sexual assault by

Finney.173 These were the only two instances in which Clark received a phone call

of this kind from AG, and both were relevant to demonstrate the significance of those

phone calls.

Moreover, Clark’s testimony made clear that Finney was the victim of the

domestic incident, and no argument was put forth that because Finney was involved

in such a dispute, he had the propensity to engage in sexual misconduct against his

grandchildren. Thus, trial counsel had no basis to object under D.R.E. 404. Again,

Finney has failed to demonstrate how counsel’s representation fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness or caused him any prejudice by failing to object

to the testimony regarding the domestic incident involving his wife.174

With respect to Claim 8, Finney alleges that trial counsel was ineffective

because he failed to challenge inconsistencies between the victims’ trial statements

and statements made during their CAC interviews. This claim appears to be the crux

of Finney’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as he devotes hundreds of

pages of his pro se responses and briefing to the issue by attempting to point out

172
Id.
173
Id. at 107-109.
174
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
30
what he perceives as material inconsistencies in their statements.175 Finney

painstakingly reviews and annotates a multitude of pages of trial transcript and CAC

interview statements in an attempt to prove to the Court that the victims lied and he

should be exonerated.176 In so doing, Finney seems to ignore the fact that “it is the

sole province of the fact finder to determine witness credibility, resolve conflicts in

testimony and draw any inferences from the proven facts.”177 Finney opted for a

bench trial so determinations regarding the credibility of the victims’ testimony were

made by the trial judge. The Amended Motion is not an opportunity for Finney to

relitigate his case or attempt to overturn such findings of fact.

With respect to Finney’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in

response to Claim 8, trial counsel explained that when conducting a cross

examination of a witness he does not address “each and every inconsistency in a

witness’ statement if the statement is a distinction without a difference[, yet] does

bring out any inconsistency that furthers the defense of the client.”178 Under

Strickland, there is a strong presumption that trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable

and constituted sound trial strategy.179 Many of the inconsistences that Finney points

175
See D.I. 120, 133, 134.
176
Id.
177
McCoy v. State, 112 A.3d 239, 267 (Del. 2015) (quoting Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del.
2005).
178
D.I. 127.
179
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (1984).
31
out are not true inconsistencies that go to the core of the alleged charges.180 For

example, when comparing ZG’s CAC interview with her trial testimony, Finney

notes that at trial ZG stated that Finney put her breast in his mouth but in the CAC

interview she fails to mention that fact and only states that he touched her breasts.181

While the Court acknowledges there may be discrepancies between the

victims’ trial testimony and their CAC interview statements, it does not appear to

the Court that any of these discrepancies rise to the level that would require or

compel any reasonable trial counsel to bring them up on cross examination. Put

differently, Finney has not demonstrated how trial counsel’s failure to cross examine

the victims’ regarding these discrepancies was objectively unreasonable or would

otherwise have made a difference in the outcome of his bench trial as contemplated

under Strickland.

Indeed, in Green v. State, the Delaware Supreme Court previously found a

similar decision by trial counsel not to cross examine a child witness about an

inconsistency between her trial testimony and CAC interview failed to satisfy either

prong of Strickland, finding said decision to be objectively reasonable and consistent

180
Some of the “inconsistencies” Finney alleges are not inconsistencies at all. Delaware courts
have recognized that child victims of sexual abuse often exhibit gradual and conflicting disclosures
over time. See Condon v. State, 597 A.2d 7 (Del. 1991)(finding that experts in psychological
dynamics may testify about general tendencies toward gradual and conflicting disclosures by
victims of child sexual abuse but such testimony is limited to explaining general behavioral
patterns and cannot quantify the truthfulness of a specific complainant).
181
D.I. 120. See annotated CAC Interview of ZG at 10-14.
32
with the defense strategy.182 Here, trial counsel determined that cross examining the

victims regarding the discrepancies between their trial testimony and CAC

statements did not further Finney’s defense strategy—that the incidents did not occur

and could not have occurred given the lack of privacy in the house and fact that the

victims continued to willingly visit their grandparents’ house over the four or five

years when the incidents purportedly took place.183 Given that strategy, it was

objectively reasonable for trial counsel not to challenge minor inconsistencies in the

victims’ testimony.

Claim 5: Counsel was Ineffective for Failing to Investigate Facts.

In Claim 5, Finney asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

investigate the specific dates when Defendant was living at the two residences where

the alleged crimes took place—the East Side residence and the New Castle

residence.184 Finney seems to be of the view that if he could have established the

exact dates that he resided in each residence at trial and was able to demonstrate that

he did not reside at a given residence during the year when the victims alleged

182
Green v. State, 238 A.3d 160 (Del. 2020). The defense strategy in Green was that the victim
and her sister did not like the defendant and would lie to hurt him, a strategy that appeared to work
given that Green was acquitted of all counts except those supported by physical evidence. Id. at
179.
183
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 81-88. As previously noted, the defense also
argued that Finney was the victim of inappropriate sexual behavior by his minor granddaughters.
184
D.I. 80.
33
specific abuse occurred, such evidence would have undermined the credibility of the

victims’ testimony. For the reason discussed herein, this claim also lacks merit.

While counsel has a duty to make “reasonable investigations or to make a

reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. . .a particular

decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all

circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.”185

Finney’s wife testified that she lived with her husband at the New Castle home,

located at 504 West Avenue, since approximately July of 2012 but wasn’t sure of

the exact date.186 Aside from the minor victims, other individuals similarly testified

that Finney resided at both the East Side residence and the New Castle home.187

Finney himself does not dispute that he lived at both houses.188

A further investigation by trial counsel into the exact dates that Finney moved

in and out of each residence is unlikely to have materially benefited his defense. In

addition to the elements of the alleged crimes, the State need only prove that the

conduct took place within the jurisdiction of this Court and not the exact date. Trial

counsel’s decision not to investigate exactly when Finney was living at the two

residences was reasonable in light of the fact that the specific house where the

185
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (1984).
186
D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 201.
187
Id. at 23, 87-88, 100-103, 172, 176-177.
188
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 48-49. Finney believes that he and his wife
moved to the New Castle residence in 2013 as opposed to 2012. Id.
34
instances of sexual abuse occurred are immaterial for purposes of satisfying the

required elements of the crimes charged. Therefore, trial counsel’s decision not to

further investigate when exactly the Defendant resided at each property was

objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

Claim 9: Counsel was Ineffective for Failing to Share Discovery Materials.

Finney argues that trial counsel failed to give him discovery before trial so he

was unable to assist in his defense.189 In particular, he takes issue with the fact that

he did not receive copies of the CAC interviews of the victims, which as previously

discussed, he sees as inconsistent with their trial testimony and should have been

utilized to undermine the victims’ credibility.190

There is no obligation of counsel to provide material given in discovery to the

defendant. While it is good practice, there is no constitutional requirement to do

so.191 However, in this case, trial counsel affirms that he met with Finney over ten

times in person, as well as by telephone and video calls.192 Trial counsel also

maintains that he went over the discovery in detail with Finney, including reading

the discovery verbatim to him.193 Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot conclude

189
D.I. 124.
190
D.I. 134.
191
State v. Winn, 2004 WL 3030023, *2 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004), affirmed, 2005 WL 3357513 (Del.
2005); State v. Robinson, 2012 WL 1415645, *3 (Del. Super. Ct. 2012), affirmed, 2012 WL
4162948 (Del. 2012).
192
D.I. 127.
193
Id.
35
that trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness.194

Claim 10: Counsel was Ineffective for Failing to Challenge the Court’s Verdict.

Finney contends that trial counsel failed to challenge the court’s verdict

because “[he] was convicted of continuous sexual abuse even though the witness

testified to only one incident.”195 This claim also lacks merit.

First, the victims both testified to more than one incident of sexual abuse by

Finney.196 Second, trial counsel indicated that he “argued for Finney’s innocence[,

and] does not understand what exactly [he] is challenging.”197 Finney has not

specifically articulated what trial counsel failed to challenge about the court’s

verdict. As the finder of fact, Judge LeGrow applied the facts of the case to the law

and found there was sufficient evidence to convict Finney on numerous counts.198

She also acquitted him of several counts for which she did not find sufficient

evidence.199 Trial counsel could not be ineffective for failing to challenge the court’s

verdict when there was no legal basis to do so.

194
Assuming arguendo that Finney did not get to review certain pieces of discovery, he has not
identified how such information, had he known about it prior to trial, would have furthered his
defense for the reasons previously discussed with respect to Claim 8.
195
D.I. 124.
196
See D.I. 71. Trial Transcript, dated May 14, 2019, at 47-48, 53-55, 56-58, 67-70, 71-72, 130-
132, 138-140, 143-146, 153-154, 155.
197
D.I. 127.
198
D.I. 70. Trial Transcript, dated May 15, 2019, at 92-94.
199
Id.
36
Claim 11: The State Knowingly Used False Testimony.

Similar to Claim 8, Finney asserts that the State’s witnesses made statements

during their testimony “that differed from their previous statements that went

unchecked or questioned by the State.”200 For its part, the State argued in its response

that trial counsel had an opportunity to and did cross-examine their witnesses.201

Further, the State emphasized that Finney failed to substantiate testimony that was

false and produce any evidence to support this claim.202

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Claim 11 is procedurally barred as Finney was

required to raise any such claims relating to prosecutorial misconduct and perjury

on direct appeal.203 Rule 61(i)(3) prohibits consideration of “[a]ny ground for relief

that was not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction”

unless the defendant can demonstrate “[c]ause for relief from the procedural default”

and “[p]rejudice from violation of the movant’s rights.”204 Rule 61(i)(5) provides

relief from a procedural default for claims (i) that the Court lacked jurisdiction or

(ii) in which the defendant pleads with particularity that either new evidence exists

200
D.I. 124.
201
D.I. 131. Trial counsel did not respond to this claim, as it “[was] not directed at [c]ounsel.”
D.I. 127.
202
D.I. 131.
203
See Ruffin v. State, 2019 WL 719038 (Del. 2019) (holding that claims of prosecutorial
misconduct not raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3)); see also
Reeder v. State, 2006 WL 1210986 (Del. 2006) (holding that perjury claims raised for the first
time on a motion for postconviction relief are procedurally barred under Rule 61(i)(3)).
204
Id.
37
that creates a strong inference of actual innocence, or a new rule of constitutional

law, retroactively applied to the movant’s case, renders the conviction invalid.205

Finney makes no challenge based on jurisdiction, offers no new evidence of

his actual innocence or a new rule of constitutional law that would overcome this

procedural default.206 Nor can he demonstrate cause for relief or prejudice because

the ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to the purported perjury and

prosecutorial misconduct fail on the merits.

205
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5) and 61(d)(2)(i)-(2)(ii).
206
Super Ct. Crim R. 61(d)(2)(i) and (ii).
38
CONCLUSION

Finney has failed to establish that his trial counsel was deficient in any regard

or that he suffered actual prejudice as a result thereof. The Court has reviewed the

record carefully and has concluded that Finney’s Amended Motion is without merit

and devoid of any other substantial claims for relief. The Court is also satisfied that

Defendant’s assigned Rule 61 counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the

record and the law and has properly determined that Defendant does not have a

meritorious claim to be raised in his postconviction motion.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Finney’s Amended Motion for

Postconviction Relief should be DENIED and Rule 61 counsel’s motion to

withdraw should be GRANTED. Finney’s Motion to be Exonerated and any other

pending motions not previously addressed by the Court should be DENIED.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

/s/ Janine M. Salomone
The Honorable Janine M. Salomone

oc: Prothonotary
cc: Dianna A. Dunn, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Benjamin S. Gifford, IV, Esquire (Postconviction counsel)
Ralph D. Wilkinson, Esquire, Office of Defense Services

39
Melvin W. Finney, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center

40