State v. Bezarez

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
)
v. ) I.D. Nos. 0703000796 &
) 0702002298
JOSE BEZAREZ, )
)
Defendant. )

Submitted: May 27, 2025
Decided: August 26, 2025

ORDER

On Defendant’s Motion for Post Conviction Relief – SUMMARILY DENIED
On Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel – DENIED AS MOOT

On this 26th day of August, 2025, having considered Defendant’s Motion for

Postconviction relief filed in both of the above-captioned cases, 1 Motion for

Appointment of Counsel,2 and the entire record in this case, it appears to the Court

that:

1
State v. Bezarez, Superior Court Criminal Docket, ID No. 0703000796, Docket
Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 198. All docket cites refer to this case number unless
specified otherwise.
2
D.I. 199.
1. The majority of Bezarez’s sentence relates to a jury verdict finding him

guilty of Murder in the First Degree, Felony-Murder, Robbery First Degree, two

counts of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree,

and five counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony

(hereinafter “PFDCF”), following a shooting that occurred on the evening of

February 24, 2007.3

2. The facts of this case are found by the Delaware Supreme Court upon

Bezarez’s direct appeal of his conviction:

Jose Bezarez and his partner, “Dolte,” were visiting at Audrey Harris’s
house. The two men were watching movies and playing video games
with several children, including Bezarez’s 15-year-old “godson,”
Darren Hunt, and Darren’s 14-year-old brother, Day-Von Hunt. At
some point, the Hunt brothers, Bezarez, and Dolte went out to get food
and conduct business. Bezarez took his gun along for protection, but
someone else was holding it for him.

Bezarez sold $6,500 in drugs and also spent some time getting high. As
the two men and two boys were walking through the parking lot of the
Tu Rancho Jubilee restaurant, Bezarez saw Michael, Ramon and
Maximo Campusano. Bezarez had purchased $11,000 of “bad” cocaine
from the Campusanos in early January. Since then, Bezarez had been
trying to get his money back, but the Campusanos were avoiding him.
Bezarez and his companions confronted the Campusanos. Bezarez
waived his gun at them and spoke to the Campusanos in Spanish.
According to Ramon, Bezarez told them to give him their money and
everything they had. The Campusanos put their hands up and Bezarez
instructed the Hunt brothers to “check” them. Day-Von took a cell
phone and wallet from Michael, and another Campusano gave Darren
twenty dollars without being searched.

3
D.I. 92.
Maximo reportedly told Bezarez that he was not going to give Bezarez
anything. While the two were talking, Maximo tried to grab Bezarez's
gun. During the ensuing struggle, Maximo was shot twice and died. 4

3. Prior to the killing of Maximo Campusano, Bezarez was involved in

another shooting on February 3, 2007.5 From that incident, Bezarez was charged

with four counts of Reckless Endangering First Degree, PFDCF, and one count of

Possessing a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited for allegedly discharging a

firearm into an apartment building while victims were inside.6 He was indicted on

these charges on March 19, 2007, after the murder occurred. 7

4. On January 23, 2008, the day scheduled for trial on the Reckless

Endangering charges, Bezarez entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of

Reckless Endangering First Degree for the apartment shooting. 8 On December 5,

2008, he was sentenced to two (2) years of Level V time on that charge.9

5. On September 18, 2008, Bezarez proceeded to trial in the murder

case.10 Bezarez took the stand and testified that the gun went off accidentally.11

In rebuttal, and over Bezarez’s objection, the State introduced evidence
that Bezarez had fired the same gun into the floor of his mother’s
apartment on February 3, 2007. One police officer described the

4
Bezarez v. State, 983 A.2d 946, 947 (Del. 2009).
5
Id.
6
State v. Bezarez, Superior Court Criminal ID No. 0702002298, D.I. 1.
7
Bezarez v. State, 2020 WL 7393240 (Del. Super. Dec. 16, 2020).
8
D.I. 46 (0702002298).
9
D.I. 47 (0702002298).
10
D.I. 92.
11
Bezarez, 983 A.2d at 947.
incident. Another identified the bullets extracted from the apartment
floor as having been fired by the same gun that killed Maximo. Finally,
Bezarez’s mother testified that she heard gun shots while in her
bedroom and came out to the living room to find her son was standing
there with what appeared to be a gun in his hand. The State was not
permitted to introduce evidence that, in response to that incident,
Bezarez pled nolo contendere to a charge of reckless endangering.12

6. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges. Bezarez now faces

two life sentences and substantial additional Level V time.13 He directly appealed

his sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court to consider the sole issue of “whether

the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to introduce extrinsic

evidence to establish that Bezarez fired the murder weapon approximately three

weeks before he killed Maximo.”14 The Supreme Court found the trial court acted

within its discretion and affirmed Bezarez’s convictions on October 30, 2009.15

7. Bezarez has submitted a total of fourteen postconviction filings and

numerous motions in these cases since his consecutive term of incarceration began

in 2008.16 On January 4, 2010, he filed his first pro se Motion for Postconviction

Relief (hereinafter “first PCR”) solely in his reckless endangering case. His Motion

alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to “investigate or question

12
Id.
13
D.I. 97.
14
Bezarez, 983 A.2d at 948.
15
D.I. 100, 119; Id. at 946.
16
D.I. 51, 62, 98, 109, 121, 126 (0702002298); D.I. 119, 126-128, 138, 142, 151,
156, 165-66, 191-92 (0703000796).
[] key witness [sic]” for trial and instead advised Bezarez to enter a nolo contendere

plea. 17 The Court denied his first PCR on June 22, 2010. The Delaware Supreme

Court dismissed Bezarez’s appeal of the Court’s denial on August 13, 2010.18

8. On October 28, 2010, Bezarez filed another pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief, his first in the murder case.19 This motion raised several

claims, including allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel for “failing to

object to the State [sic] use of Detective Campos [sic] translation of witnesses prior

out-of-court statement to be used as substantive independent value,”20 and alleged

the Court “‘committed reversible error’ when it abuse [sic] it [sic] discretion by

admitting 404(b) evidence of other crimes, which the probative value proffer at trial,

said evidence worked impermissively [sic] to show criminal propensity and

conformity therewith, infringing on movant [sic] right to a fair trial.” 21 Both Trial

and Appellate Counsel filed Affidavits and full briefing followed. 22 Ultimately, this

Court denied Bezarez’s Motion.23

17
D.I. 51 (0702002298).
18
D.I. 59.
19
D.I. 128.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
D.I. 135, 136.
23
D.I. 132, 133, 143. The matter was referred to a Superior Court Commissioner
pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Procedure Rule 62. Bezarez
appealed the Commissioner’s decision, which prompted this Court’s review.
9. Bezarez appealed the Court’s denial of his second PCR. 24 His appeal,

in part, argued “the Superior Court [] erred during trial proceedings when it

permitted evidence of ‘prior bad acts’ to be admitted.” 25 The Supreme Court

affirmed the denial on the basis that “there is no evidence that reconsideration is

warranted in the interest of justice,” as this issue was unsuccessfully raised in his

direct appeal. 26

10. Bezarez again raised various ineffective assistance of counsel

allegations in his next pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief filed on March 12,

2013. 27 In it, Bezarez argued Trial Counsel’s advice to enter his plea agreement left

him “in a much worse situation than he was in without the plea.”28 That Motion was

denied as both procedurally barred and without merit on May 12, 2014.29

11. Bezarez appealed the denial of his third filing.30 The Supreme Court

affirmed the Court’s postconviction denial on December 1, 2014. 31

12. On May 24, 2018, Bezarez filed his fourth pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief that again alleged “[c]ounsel failed to properly advise Bezarez

24
D.I. 144.
25
Bezarez v. State, 2012 WL 1390247, at *1 (Del. Supr. Apr. 12, 2012).
26
Id; D.I. 148.
27
D.I. 151 (0702002298). This is Bezarez’s second PCR in the reckless endangering
case and his third filing overall.
28
Id.
29
State v. Bezarez, 2014 WL 2119703, at *3 (Del. Super. May 12, 2014).
30
D.I. 91 (0702002298).
31
Bezarez v. State, 2014 WL 7010649 (Del. Supr. Dec. 1, 2024).
as to the plea and failed to provide him with effective representation in violation of

the 6th, [sic] and 14th amendment[s] of the U.S. Constitution.” 32 This Court

summarily denied Bezarez’s Motion as successive under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 61(i)(2). 33

13. On May 27, 2024, Bezarez then turned to Rule 35 for relief.34 This

attempt was unsuccessful, as the Court denied his Motion for Correction of Sentence

on September 29, 2014.35

14. On July 15, 2019, Bezarez filed another pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims. 36 The Court

denied relief, reasoning Bezarez “had the opportunity to (and did) assert ineffective

assistance of counsel claims in his first Motion for Postconviction Relief,” therefore

any subsequent attacks on his prior representation are barred.37 Bezarez appealed

that decision, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s denial on

October 21, 2020. 38

32
D.I. 98 (0702002298); State v. Bezarez, 2018 WL 3912027 (Del. Super. Aug. 14,
2018).
33
D.I. 103 (0702002298); Id.
34
D.I. 162.
35
D.I. 163.
36
D.I. 165. While this is Bezarez’s second PCR in his murder case, it is his fifth
filing overall.
37
D.I. 181, 187.
38
D.I. 188.
15. On July 1, 2020, Bezarez filed his sixth pro se Motion seeking

postconviction relief.39 The Court summarily dismissed the filing on December 16,

2020. 40 Bezarez again appealed the Court’s dismissal, which the Supreme Court

affirmed on August 31, 2021.41

16. On October 31, 2024, Bezarez filed yet another pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief. 42 The Court, again, summarily dismissed that filing on

December 3, 2024, under Rule 61(d)(2)(1). 43 On December 17, 2024, Bezarez filed

a Motion to Reopen the Case, which the Court construed as a Motion for

Reargument. 44 The Court denied the request on February 19, 2025. 45

17. Most recently, on May 27, 2025, Bezarez filed the instant pro se Motion

for Postconviction Relief 46 and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.47 Between

the two cases, this is Bezarez’s eighth motion seeking postconviction relief, and he

39
D.I. 109 (0702002298). This is Bezarez’s fourth filing in his reckless endangering
case.
40
D.I. 114 (0702002298).
41
D.I. 120 (0702002298).
42
D.I. 191. This filing was docketed in both cases, and it is his seventh filing overall.
It is the fifth PCR docketed in his reckless endangering case and his third in the
murder case.
43
D.I. 195.
44
D.I. 196.
45
D.I. 197.
46
D.I. 198
47
D.I. 199.
submits a single ground for relief similar to those articulated on direct appeal and in

many of his prior postconviction filings:

Movant’s Counsel were ineffective by allowing Defendant to testify
knowing the STATE [sic] wanted to present extrinsic evidence of
conduct that occurred three weeks prior to the incident in this case. The
Record reflects that Counsel suggested that the prosecutor simply ask
Movant if He had previously fired the weapon. Counsel allowing
Bezarez to testify knowing that by Him getting on the witness stand it
would open the door to testimony and argument about Bezarez’s prior
bad act.48

18. Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 governs motions for postconviction

relief. Before addressing the merits of a postconviction motion, the Court must

examine whether any of the Rule 61 procedural bars apply. 49 A motion for

postconviction relief can be procedurally barred as untimely, repetitive, for failing

to raise a claim in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction, and for

being formerly adjudicated.50 An applicable procedural bar precludes a reviewing

court from addressing the merits of a Rule 61 claim, to “protect the procedural

integrity” of the Court Rules. 51

48
D.I. 198, p. 20.
49
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
50
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1)-(4).
51
State v. Page, 2009 WL 1141738, at *13 (Del. Super. Apr. 28, 2009); see also
State v. Chao, 2006 WL 2788180, at *5 (Del. Super. Sept. 25, 2006) (“to protect the
integrity of the procedural rules, the Court should not consider the merits of a
postconviction claim where a procedural bar exists”).
19. Under Rule 61(d)(2) a second or subsequent motion for postconviction

relief must be summarily dismissed, unless “the movant was convicted after a trial

and the pleadings allege new evidence of actual innocence52 or a retroactive new

rule of constitutional law that applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction

invalid.”53 The Court may appoint counsel for an indigent defendant only if the

judge determines the second or subsequent motion satisfies the pleading

requirements of Rule 61(d)(2).54

20. Bezarez’s Motion does not plead either of Rule 61(d)(2)’s required

elements. Bezarez’s allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door

to testimony about Bezarez’s involvement in the February 3, 2007, shooting hardly

evidences Bezarez’s innocence of the crimes convicted at trial. To the extent Bezarez

argues the jury may not have found him guilty on all counts had evidence of the prior

shooting not been admitted, nothing in the record substantiates that belief, and such

an argument is irrelevant to Rule 61(d)(2)’s legal standard.

21. “Summary dismissal is appropriate if it plainly appears from the motion

for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the

movant is not entitled to relief.”55 It plainly appears from Bezarez’s Motion, after

52
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i).
53
Bezarez, 2020 WL 7393240, at *1 (citing Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(ii)).
54
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(5).
55
State v. Reed, 2024 WL 2746694 at *2 (Del. Super. May 23, 2024) (citing Sup.
Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(5)).
reviewing the entirety of the record and prior proceedings in this case, that he is not

entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 61(d)(2) and 61(i)(4).

22. Bezarez’s Motion is further barred under Rule 61(i)(4), which provides

“[a]ny ground for relief that was 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, is thereafter barred.” 56 Bezarez has

repeatedly alleged trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to testimony

about Bezarez’s prior use of the murder weapon; both this Court and the Supreme

Court have considered this same evidentiary issue on numerous occasions. In fact,

this Court previously ruled that “evidence of the shooting incident appears properly

admitted during the murder trial to disprove the defense theory of accident.” 57 The

Supreme Court affirmed that finding. 58 Thus, this same evidentiary issue will not be

addressed again.

23. Bezarez asserts his instant Motion should not be considered under the

current version of Rule 61. Instead, Bezarez contends “that consideration of his

claim is warranted in the ‘interest of justice,’” which would reflect the previous

version of Rule 61 prior to the 2014 amendment.59 This argument, too, has already

56
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
57
Bezarez, 2014 WL 2119703, at *3.
58
Bezarez, 2014 WL 7010649.
59
D.I. 198, p. 11.
been rejected by the Court in its 2020 Order denying Bezarez’s prior postconviction

motion.60 The Supreme Court later affirmed this Court’s ruling that the version of

Rule 61 in existence at the time of the filing is used to adjudicate the motion.61

Delaware Supreme Court precedent and the current framework of Rule 61(i)(4)

mandate summarily denying Bezarez’s instant application as procedurally barred.

24. Bezarez’s Motion is both successive and already adjudicated pursuant

to the current version of Rules 61(d)(2) and (i)(4). Given the exhaustive record in

this case, and in the interest of preserving the integrity of Rule 61’s procedural bars,

the Court will not address the merits of Bezarez’s instant postconviction filing.62

Thus, Bezarez’s Motion for Postconviction relief is summarily denied, and no further

analysis is necessary.

25. Bezarez failed to create a strong inference that he is innocent of his

crimes, and the Court is unaware of any new rule of law rendering his conviction

invalid, nor did Bezaraz present any such rule of law. As a result, the instant Motion

for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. Accordingly, the

accompanying Motion for Appointment of Council is DENIED AS MOOT.

60
Bezarez, 2020 WL 7393240.
61
Bezarez v. State, 2021 WL 3559435 (Del. Aug. 10, 2021).
62
State v. Chao, 2006 WL 2788180, at *5 (Del. Super. Sept. 25, 2006).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________
Danielle J. Brennan, Judge

cc: Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General
Jose Bezarez, Defendant