State v. O'Neal

── State v. O'Neal ── Court: Superior Court of Delaware Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) v. ) Crim. ID. No. 2108001944 ) ) JAMES A. O’NEAL, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: April 13, 2026 Decided: June 4, 2026 COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED AND POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BE GRANTED. Michael Slights, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Kimberly Price, Esquire, Collins, Price & Warner, Wilmington, Delaware. Benjamin Gifford, Esquire, The Law Office of Benjamin Gifford, Wilmington, Delaware. James A. O’Neal, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, 1181 Paddock Road, Smyrna, Delaware 19977, pro se. O’CONNOR, M. Commissioner.  This 4th day of June, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant James A. O’Neal’s (“Defendant” or “O’Neal”) pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief;1 Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Postconviction Counsel;2 Postconviction Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw and the Appendix to same;3 the Affidavit of Trial Counsel;4 the State’s Response to the Motion for Postconviction Relief;5 and the record in this matter, the following is my Report and Recommendation. I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendant’s November 14, 2024 pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief (“Motion”).6 Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited.7 In the Motion, Defendant asserts two ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, arguing (a) trial counsel “was ineffective when she had [him] sign a stipulation with[out] properly explaining it to [him],”8 and (b) counsel was ineffective because she did not object to the redacted video because it did not show [him] throwing anything and it showed two men [kneeling] next to the gun.”9 1 Docket Item (“D.I.”) 50. 2 D.I. 47. 3 D.I. 65, D.I. 66. 4 D.I. 70. 5 D.I. 69. 6 D.I. 50. 7 O’Neal v. State, 2024 WL 981384 (Del. March 6, 2024). 8 D.I. 50, p. 3. 9 Id. 2  For the reasons that follow, I recommend Defendant’s Motion be SUMMARILY DISMISSED as meritless, and Postconviction counsel’s Motion to Withdraw be GRANTED. II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 4, 2021, Defendant was arrested by officers from the Wilmington Police Department for nine offenses: Robbery First Degree; Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony; Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”); Possession of Firearm Ammunition by a Person Prohibited; Possession of a Weapon with a Removed, Obliterated or Altered Serial Number; Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon; Aggravated Menacing; Tampering with Physical Evidence; and Terroristic Threatening.10 On August 1, 2022, Defendant’s trial counsel, Kimberly Price, Esquire (“trial counsel”) filed a Motion to Sever the Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Person Prohibited charges from the remaining offenses.11 During this Court’s August 2, 2022 teleconference, the State informed this Court it intended to proceed to trial first on the PFBPP offense, and if Defendant were convicted, it would enter a Nolle Prosequi on the remaining charges.12 10 State v. James O’Neal, Case No. 2108001944, Adult Complaint and Warrant. 11 D.I. 11. 12 D.I. 32, 5:5 – 15. The Motion to Sever was deemed moot. Id. at 13:7 – 10. 3  Defendant’s trial was held on August 8, 2022. At the conclusion of the one- day trial, the jury found Defen