Darnell Martin was prevented from challenging his conviction because he was no longer in state custody despite still facing the consequences of having a criminal record from the conviction. The MacArthur Justice Center, alongside the ACLU of Delaware and the Innocence Network, filed an amicus brief outlining the long-standing and disenfranchising consequences of conviction outside of incarceration and emphasizing that meritorious conviction challenge should be seen by the courts regardless of the person’s incarceration status.
After being convicted, Mr. Martin filed a motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his lawyer was ineffective in defending his case. While two years passed as the trial court considered his motion, Mr. Martin served his time and was released. Upon release, Mr. Martin’s motion was dismissed by the Delaware Superior Court, which argued the issue was moot now that he was no longer in custody.
For many people convicted of crimes, including Mr. Martin, the consequences of their convictions continue beyond incarceration. They can face eviction, ineligibility for educational programs, job loss, inability to vote, and deportation.
Together with the ACLU of Delaware and the Innocence Network, the MacArthur Justice Center (MJC) filed an amicus brief, arguing that it is unfair for the state to continue attaching consequences to a conviction after releasing someone while shutting its eyes and ears to the possibility that the conviction might be unsound. Everyone who is convicted of a crime deserves one full and fair opportunity to have a judge determine whether their conviction is legally valid.
UPDATE
The Delaware Supreme Court unanimously agreed that people who are released from custody while they are challenging their convictions, like Mr. Martin, can continue pursuing their challenges as long as they continue to face collateral consequences. The Court also ruled that individuals challenging their only felony conviction, or whose only other felony convictions have been pardoned, are presumed to face collateral consequences.
The Court’s decision is an important step toward ensuring that people whose convictions are illegal are able to obtain relief from the serious consequences of those convictions.
“As long as the State continues using convictions to deny people basic civil, political, and economic rights, those people deserve one full opportunity to have a judge decide whether those convictions are valid. The Superior Court’s decision denies people their day in court even if they file timely challenges to their convictions which raise arguments that they have never been able to raise before.”