IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 2105008322 ) MAURICIO HERNANDEZ- ) MARTINEZ, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Submitted: April 25, 2023 Decided: May 3, 2023 Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas-After Remand, DENIED. Kevin A. Gardner, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for the State of Delaware. Edward C. Gill, Esq., Law Office of Edward C. Gill, P.A., Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant. CONNER, J. INTRODUCTION Mauricio Hernandez-Martinez’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (the “Motion”) arises from his October 4, 2021, guilty pleas to Operating a Motor Vehicle Causing Death and Leaving the Scene of a Collision Resulting in Death. Defendant filed the Motion on November 22, 2021. Upon hearing the testimony of Andrew Whitehead, Esq. on remand and reviewing the parties’ submissions, Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Pleas is again DENIED. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 7, 2020, police were dispatched to a hit and run collision. When police officers arrived on scene they found Robert Root (the “victim”). The victim had been struck by a car while walking along East Trap Pond Road in Georgetown, Delaware. The victim died as a result of his injuries. Police officers interviewed two eyewitnesses to the collision.1 The witnesses stated they observed a white sedan, what they thought to be a Nissan Altima, pass them at a high rate of speed. After passing them, the sedan struck the victim who was walking eastbound in the westbound lane. The operator of the white sedan did not stop after striking the victim. 1 The collision was also captured on the witness’ dash camera. 1 Investigating police officers discovered numerous pieces of the white sedan left behind at the scene of the accident due to the collision. Among the pieces was part of the white sedan’s mirror, which enabled police to narrow their search to a 2008 to 2013 white Nissan Altima. On November 9, 2020, Defendant went to see Andrew Whitehead, Esquire.2 Mr. Whitehead provided a translator for the meeting. Mr. Whitehead testified that he advises clients of immigration ramifications as a matter of course during initial consultations.3 Further, Mr. Whitehead testified that it is his practice to advise clients with possible immigration issues to consult an immigration attorney.4 Mr. Whitehead also testified that before a police interview is conducted it is his practice to advise the client of their fifth amendment rights.5 Although he had no specific recollection and his notes do not reflect he had these conversations with Defendant, Mr. Whitehead was clear that these things are routinely discussed with his clients.6 Mr. Whitehead explained that Defendant was adamant about wanting to take responsibility for the collision at this first meeting.7 Defendant’s desire did not waiver despite Mr. Whitehead advising Defendant he had no duty to talk with the 2 Tr. of Evidentiary Hr’g at 8:3-9. 3 Id. at 16:6-19, 17:4-16. 4 Id. at 17:4-16, 18:10-17, 21:9-23, 43:16-21. 5 Id. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals