Thomas v. State

305 A.3d 683

Shamayah THOMAS, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.STATE of Delaware, Appellee.

No. 268, 2022

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: July 26, 2023

Decided: October 2, 2023

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, I.D. Nos. 1909006727, 2001007661, 2001006118, 2001006417(N)

Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.

Christofer C. Johnson, Esquire, The Johnson Firm, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.

Kathryn Garrison, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LeGROW, Justices.

VALIHURA, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 2021, following a two-day bench trial in the New Castle County Superior Court, defendant below-appellant Shamayah Thomas ("Thomas") was convicted of Stalking and related acts of intimidation and harassment. Before his bench trial, Thomas filed a pro se Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel and/or to Appoint New Counsel on the grounds that his then-current counsel was not following his instructions regarding his pretrial defense (the "First Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel").¹ The trial court denied Thomas’s motion pursuant to Superior Court Rule 47.²

Also before trial, Thomas’s counsel filed a motion to suppress digital evidence (the "Motion to Suppress") collected from Thomas’s pink iPhone ("Pink iPhone"), alleging that law enforcement seized the phone without a warrant and, alternatively, that the search warrant issued following the seizure of the Pink iPhone ("Search Warrant") was constitutionally defective.³ The trial court granted in part, and denied in part, the Motion to Suppress, ultimately admitting certain evidence extracted from the Pink iPhone.⁴

After trial, but before his sentencing, Thomas filed a second motion to dismiss current counsel and/or appoint new counsel (the "Second Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel" and together with the First Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel, the "Motions to Dismiss Counsel").⁵ Although the Superior Court prothonotary’s office failed to direct the Second Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel to defense counsel or to the trial judge, the trial court addressed the motion at Thomas’s sentencing hearing. Given the option of either delaying sentencing and proceeding pro se, or proceeding with his then-current counsel, Thomas chose to proceed with sentencing as scheduled, represented by his then-current counsel.

On appeal, Thomas argues that the Superior Court: (1) erred when it categorized the Pink iPhone Search Warrant as an overbroad warrant as opposed to an unconstitutional general warrant; and (2) failed to adequately address Thomas’s Motions to Dismiss Counsel. Thomas asks this court to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Superior Court.

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Thomas’s Arrests

On September 11, 2019, New Castle County Police Department ("NCCPD") officer Roberto Ieradi was dispatched to a northern New Castle County apartment complex where one of the victims, A.S., lived with A.T., a child A.S. had with Thomas.⁶ There, A.S. showed Ieradi a number of threatening messages on her phone from Thomas.⁷ Ieradi took pictures on his police-issued phone of the threatening messages on A.S.’s phone screen. At the time, Thomas was subject to a protection from abuse ("PFA") order, which directed him to have no contact with A.T. or her family, including A.S. On September 17, 2019, Thomas was arrested by the NCCPD as a result of the September 11 incident and was indicted for Stalking, Aggravated Act of Intimidation, and Terroristic Threatening. As a condition of Thomas’s bond, on September 17, 2019, the Justice of the Peace Court of Delaware in and for Sussex County ("JFP"), issued a no-contact order between A.S. and the defendant. On October 11, 2019, A.S. obtained an additional PFA against Thomas.⁸

Thereafter, Thomas continued to try to contact A.S. On January 11, 2020, Thomas’s pretrial supervisor received an alert that Thomas had removed the GPS device that he was required to wear as a condition of his bond. The same day, NCCPD responded to a complaint from A.S. that Thomas had sent to her and to her friend, S.M., a number of alarming text messages on January 10 and January 11, all in violation of the no-contact orders.⁹ In one message to S.M., Thomas asked, "Which one do you want to get hit with?" in reference to an attached image of two guns.¹⁰ NCCPD Officer Cronin captured photographs of the messages on S.M.’s phone at the scene.

While officers were present at A.S.’s home, A.S. received a phone call from Thomas. Officer Cronin placed the call on speaker phone. A.T. was in the room. At the time, Officer Cronin’s body camera was operating and captured footage of the call. On the call, Thomas threatened to kill A.S. As a result of the incident, pursuant to an arrest and search warrant for Thomas’s person, NCCPD entered Thomas’s apartment and arrested him on January 18, 2020.¹¹

B. The Search and Seizure of Thomas’s Phone

1. The Seizure of the Pink iPhone

While in Thomas’s home executing the warrant for his arrest, NCCPD officers noticed a cell phone on the dining room table. Worried that the evidence on the phone would be manipulated or erased, the officers seized the phone. At that time, a search warrant for the phone had not yet been issued.

Detective Herrera-Cortes, a detective in the NCCPD’s Family Crimes Unit, who also responded to A.S.’s report on January 11, knew the incident involved phone calls, texts, social media and photos. He also had reason to believe that Thomas had used multiple phones to commit the offenses. In an attempt to verify the owner of the Pink iPhone, Detective Herrera-Cortes called a known number of Thomas’s to see if the Pink iPhone would ring. The Pink iPhone began ringing when Detective Herrera-Cortes placed that call.

2. The Affidavit in Support of the Warrant

Thereafter, on January 31, 2020, Detective Herrera-Cortes applied for a warrant to search the Pink iPhone. The attached affidavit in support of the Search Warrant provided the following operative facts to establish probable cause that evidence of the crime of Stalking would be found in the data on the phone:

• Thomas was released to probation on February 22, 2019, after serving time for Aggravated Menacing and Criminal Contempt of a Domestic Violence Protective Order. The victim in the case was A.S. and a no contact order prohibited Thomas from contacting A.S. while Thomas was on probation.¹²

• Thomas was arrested by NCCPD on September 17, 2019, for Stalking and related charges after he had called A.S. multiple times and sent threatening messages to her cell phone. Included in the text messages were two photographs of a vehicle parked outside of two different locations where a victim was working.¹³

• On January 11 and 13, 2020, police officers conducting a domestic violence investigation into Thomas learned that Thomas had called A.S. and S.M. approximately 81 times from blocked numbers and that he had called and sent threatening text messages to them from a phone number (the 8763 number), which included "text messages sent of various handguns threatening the victims." He also sent threatening text messages to A.S.’s sister from the 8763 number and via Facebook Messenger. The officers obtained arrest warrants for Thomas for Terroristic Threatening Harassment and Non-Compliance with Conditions of Bond.¹⁴

• Officers arrested Thomas at a residence on January 18, 2020. Incidental to that arrest, they collected a Pink iPhone XR.¹⁵

• A phone call from a known number was placed to the phone number ending in 8763 and the known number appeared on the screen of the Pink iPhone as an incoming call.¹⁶

• A DELJIS inquiry revealed that the 8763 number belonged to Thomas.¹⁷

• The 8763 number was the number Thomas had registered with Probation and Parole.¹⁸

• In one case, Thomas included photos of where the victim was located. A BMW steering wheel can be seen in the photos and one of Thomas’s cars was a BMW "DE reg. 311630."¹⁹

3. The Warrant to Search the Pink iPhone

Based on the facts provided in the affidavit, a Justice of the Peace Court granted the search warrant application the same day. It issued the following Search Warrant to search the Pink iPhone:

[P]ink iPhone XR cell phone # _____8763 for the purpose of obtaining cell phone call log and text messages log and the associated dates and times. Any applications/social media capable of sending/receiving text messages or making/receiving phone calls as well as any attached storage devices which may hold text messages log or phone calls log, from 02/22/19 to 0001 hours to 01/18/20 at 2359 hours. The content of any photos or videos from iPhone XR Wireless cellular telephone number _____-8763 not subject to the above time frame (no limitations) for the purpose of this detective’s ongoing investigation related tothe crime of stalking, DE 11:1312:00a1:FG that may be contained on the device described in the annexed affidavit and application or complaint.²⁰

C. The Indictment

On March 2, 2020, a New Castle grand jury returned a superseding indictment, charging Thomas with one count of Stalking, two counts of Aggravated Act of Intimidation, six counts of Terroristic Threatening, three counts of Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions, ten counts of Harassment, three counts of Criminal Contempt of a Domestic Violence Protective Order, seven counts of Criminal Contempt, and two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

D. The First Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel and/or Appoint New Counsel

On September 22, 2020, Thomas, without his counsel’s assistance, filed the First Motion to Dismiss Current Counsel. In this motion, Thomas sought the appointment of substitute counsel. He did not seek to proceed pro se.²¹ The trial court responded in a letter to Thomas, which copied the State and defense counsel.²² It explained to Thomas that because he was represented by counse...