State v. Bergholz

SUPERIOR COURT
of the
STATE OF DELAWARE

Jeffrey J Clark Kent County Courthouse
Resident Judge 38 The Green
Dover, DE 19901
Telephone (302)735-2111

September 24, 2025

Mr. Dennis Kelleher, DAG Mr. Edward C. Gill, Esquire
Department of Justice Law Office of Gill, Welsh, and
102 West Water Street Chamberla
Dover, DE 19904 16 N. Bedford Street
P.O. Box 824
Georgetown, DE 19947

RE: State v. Richard Bergholz, C.A. No. 2107013754

Counsel:
The Court has reviewed the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation
(the “Report”), Mr. Bergholz’ three objections to the Report, and the record as it
pertains to Mr. Bergholz’ objections. The Court requires further evidentiary context
before evaluating the Lafler v. Cooper1 issue raised in Mr. Bergholz’ third objection.
In large part, this context is necessary because Trial Counsel’s affidavit does not
squarely address Mr. Bergholz’ contention that Trial Counsel advised Mr. Bergholz
that his exposure was limited to a third offense driving under the influence
conviction after a trial.

1
566 U.S. 156 (2012).
As a result, the Court will hold an evidentiary hearing as soon as practical to
address the issues surrounding Mr. Bergholz’ third objection. To avoid undue delay
that would naturally accompany remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a
hearing, and because the Court is charged with reviewing her decision on this
objection de novo under Superior Court Criminal Rule 62(a)(5)(iv), the undersigned
will conduct the hearing. There, the parties should be prepared to address the precise
content of Trial Counsel’s advice to Mr. Bergholz about the risks he faced by
proceeding to trial when compared to resolving the plea as a third offense. The
parties may present any other evidence pertinent to the third objection as well which
could certainly include, but not be limited to, the effect of any allegedly deficient
advice on Mr. Berholz’ decision making.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/Jeffrey J Clark
Resident Judge

cc: Trial Counsel

2