Noah Sharp v. State of Delaware - Postconviction Relief Denied

IN THE SUPE RIO R COU RT O F THE STATE OF DELAWARE S TATE O F DEL AWARE,)) v.) ID No. 2010002207) NOAH SH ARP,)) Defe nda nt.) S ubmit ted: Febr uar y 19, 2026 Decide d: March 4, 2026 U pon Def endant Noah Sh arp’s Moti on for Pos tconv icti on Rel ief, DENIE D. U pon Motion to Withd raw as Cou nsel of Patr ick J. Coll ins, E squire, GRANTED. ORD ER J ulie M. D onoghue, Esq uire, Dep uty Att orne y Gene ral, D EPA RTME NT O F JU STI CE, 820 North Fre nch Street, Wil mington DE 19801, Attor ney fo r the State of Dela war e. P atric k J. C oll ins, Esquire, COLLINS PR ICE W AR NER WOLO SHIN, 8 East 1 3 th Stre et, Wilming ton, DE 19801, Attor ney f or the Defenda nt Noa h Sha rp. Noah S har p, Jam es T. Vaug hn Cor rect iona l Cen ter, 1181 P add ock R oad, Sm yr na, DE 1997 1, Defe nda nt. WHA RTON, J.

2 This 4th day of March, 20 26, up on consider ation o f Defen dant Noah S harp’ s (“ Sh arp”) Motion for Postc onviction Relief (“ PCR Mot ion”), 1 the Motion to W ithd raw a s Cou nsel of Pat r ick J. Col lins, 2 Sharp’s ’ Respon se to th e Motion to Withdr aw, 3 the Sta te’s Respo nse, 4 and the r ecor d in th is case, i t app ears to the Cou r t that: 1. Sh arp was c onv icted of fir st de gree m urder, p osse ssion of a deadl y weapon during the commis sion of a f elony, an d co nspir acy f irst degr ee by a jur y in Octo ber 202 2 and sentenc ed to life in pri son pl us 2 8 years on all charge s. His d irec t appea l was unsucce ssfu l. 5 Shar p filed h is pro se PCR M otio n and r equ est f or appo intme nt of co un sel on A ugust 20, 20 24. 6 The Cour t order ed tha t cou nsel b e appo inte d for S harp o n Augus t 23, 20 24 7 and on Januar y 23, 2025, Pat r ick J. Coll ins, Esquir e was ap point ed to repres ent Sh arp. 8 Mr. Collins, having c onscient iously revie wed the rec ord a nd ha ving f ound n o mer itor ious p ostc onvi ctio n cla ims, f ile d a Moti on to With draw a s Cou nsel pu rsua nt to Super ior Cour t Cri mina l Ru le 61(e)(7) on July 7, 2025. 9 Mr. Col lins als o infor med Shar p that he had 30 da ys to file a 1 PCR Mot., D.I. 14 3. 2 Mot. to Wit hdra w, D.I. 17 0. 3 Def.’ s Resp., D.I. 17 3 4 Stat e’s Re sp., D.I. 1 75. 5 Shar p v. S tat e, 2024 WL 3251586 (Del. 20 24). 6 D.I. 135 (pr o se PCR Motion); D.I. 136 (Mot. f or Ap poin tme nt of C ounse l). 7 D.I. 139. 8 D.I. 1 41. 9 D.I. 1 46.

3 respons e to the Mot ion to Withdr aw as C ounsel. 10 A goo d deal of activ ity occ urr ed subse que nt to M r. C ollin s fili ng h is moti on as s et ou t in h is le tter of Novem ber 7, 2025. 11 None o f that activity is partic ularly sig nific ant save Mr. Collins ’ rec eipt on August 18 th of Sharp’s un dated letter a ppearing to be a re spon se to t he Mo tion t o Withdr aw a s Coun sel, 12 S harp’ s Oct ober 6 th lett er te lling M r. Co llins he was sa tisf ied with his August le tter respons e while addin g addition al points fo r the Court’s consi deration, 13 and S harp’ s letter to the Court asking that Mr. Coll ins be remov e d and anot her atto rney be ap pointed in his place. 14 That la tter request wa s denied b y the Co urt. 15 The Sta te submit ted i ts Re spon se on F ebr uary 1 9, 20 26. 16 2. In its Order on dir ec t appea l, the Del awar e Supreme C ourt brie fly se t out the fol lowi ng fac ts: The m urde r, wh ich recei ved a con sider able amou nt o f public ity in Ne w Ca stle C ounty, oc curr ed t wo ye ars be fore Sharp's trial. The v ictim — Madi son S par row — was an eleve nth grader at Ne wark Char ter Hig h Schoo l, fro m whic h Sha rp had gra duate d in June 2020. Sparr ow an d Sh arp ha d date d whe n Sparr ow wa s in the ni nth gra de, bu t Spar row eventua lly broke off the r elationsh ip. Sparr ow had be en frie nds wi th Sha rp's codef end ant and cocon spir ator, An nika St alcz ynsk i, who also a ttend ed 10 Id. 11 D.I. 1 54. 12 Id. at Ex. D. 13 Id. at Ex. G. 14 Id. at Ex. H (D.I. 152). 15 D.I. 153. 16 D.I. 1 59.

4 Newar k Char ter. After S parr ow broke up with Sharp, Sh arp began to spend time wit h Stalc zynski. Sh arp, who was tr oub led b y the br eak up, c onvin ce d Stalcz ynski tha t Sparr ow had bee n speaking po orly of her and e ven wan ted to fig ht he r. Alt ho ugh the se re port s di d not c ause Stalc zyn ski to “ha te” Spa rro w, she ad mitte d tha t sh e “did n't like” her. Sh arp and Sta lczynsk i's sh are d disda in f or Sparr ow someh ow ev olve d into a cons pirac y to ki ll her. On Oc tobe r 2, 2020, unde r the g uise of w alki ng wi th Sparr ow to get some ic e cream, St alczy nski l ed Spar row d own a trai l in a woode d area be hind an el eme ntary sch oo l in Newar k. Sh arp was lying in w ait ther e with a ba seba ll bat. Accor ding to S talcz ynski's test imon y at Sharp 's trial, when Sparr ow s aw Shar p, she was “s hoc ked.” Sta lczyn ski a dde d that “[Shar p ] came ou t and just s tarte d swingi ng the bat ... conn ecting with her body .... [Sha rp ] s tarted hitting o n [Sparr ow's] side ove r an d over a gain. And s he fe ll.” After Sparrow fel l, Sha rp continued to blud geon he r with the ba t, n ow “[i] n her head. ” Spar row died fr om h er wounds, and S harp a nd Sta lczy nsk i buri ed her b ody i n a shal low gr ave u nder a n Inte rstat e 95 o ver pass i n Newar k. 17 3. Sh arp’s pro se PCR motion alle ges three g rounds for r elief: (1) ineff ecti ve ass ista nce of couns el (“IAC”) due to h is cou nse l’s all eged “ fail ure t o inves tigate t he co - defen dant s [sic ] menta l health a nd sta tements, DNA ev idenc e on the bat;” (2) de nia l of a fair tr ial “ beca use of a bi as [s ic] tri al jud ge wh o mad e [uns pecif ied] p reju dic ial rem ark s to defe nda nt wh ich wo uld lea d a re asona ble per son to beli eve the judge wa s bia s [sic];” and (3) the def enda nt was de nied hi s righ t to a 17 Shar p, 2024 WL 3251 586, at *1.

5 fair tr ial due to th e fai lure of the Cour t to st rike a j uror wh o had p revio us kno wled ge of the case. 18 4. In his M otio n to W ithdra w, Mr. Colli ns pre sent s a thor ough recapit ulation o f t he evide nce prese nted a t tria l as we ll as the proce dura l history o f the case. 19 He also c aref ully a sse sses S harp’ s cla ims for relie f. 20 H e finds Sharp’s IAC c laims “ not part icula rl y concr ete.” 21 He no tes th at th e DNA o n the b at was a mixed prof ile tha t wa s too co mple x to ana lyze. 22 Nor is it cle ar ho w Shar p cou ld hav e been pr eju dice d give his adm iss ion to str iki ng Madi son Sp arr ow wit h it. 23 Regar ding the code fen dant, A n nika Stal czy nski, ther e is n o evi dence that she had a ment al hea lth probl em. 24 More over, counsel c ros s - exam ine d her effe ctiv ely. 25 As to a n allege d denia l of a fa ir tr ial be cause of bi ased j udic ial co mme nts d irecte d at Sharp, Mr. C ollins was un able t o fin d any such s tatem ents i n the r ecord. 26 The Court’ s c omments at sente ncin g wer e ha rsh, b ut n ot ina ppropria tely so g iven that t he Cour t wa s ex plai ning its f indin gs of a ggrava ting c irc umsta nce s. 27 In any eve nt, Sh arp was not pr ejudice d 18 D.I. 135. 19 Mot. to Wit hdra w, D.I. 14 6. 20 Id. at 33. 21 Id. at 39. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 40. 27 Id.

6 by the C ourt ’s se nte ncing comme nts due to t he ma ndat ory se ntenc e of l ife impris onment. 28 Finally, M r. Collins observes th at Sharp’ s juror cla im is procedu rally barre d by R ule 6 1(i)(4) as it wa s prev iou sly lit igat ed on direc t appeal. 29 5. Shar p initia lly sent Mr. Colli ns an un date d letter, r ecei ved by M r. Col lin s on Aug ust 1 8, 20 24, i n whic h he i dent ifie s sever al p ostcon vict io n relie f iss ues. T he y are: Pros ecutorial Mi sconduct Prose cut or mis led w itnes ses d urin g testim ony Allowe d witn esses to converse with each oth er during the trial af ter the trial be gan Polic e Miscond uct Police led me to believe I was bein g inte rvie wed a nd not inte rrogated Police off icer s use d illeg al met hod s of in terr ogati on to g et an illeg ally o btai ned conf ess ion Police shou ld ha ve cond ucte d a mental on m e for the inte rrogation Ineffe ctive As sist ance of Coun sel Trial c ounsel a dvis ed my fa mil y tha t the y did n ot h ave a strate gy to mar shal a defe nse Ring ca mer a has v ideo f oota ge of m y codef en dant thro wing e vide nce in my ba cky ard tha t my attor ney neve r used ADHD ne ver used a s a mitig ating f actor Prior to the inc ident I wa s hit in the he ad and suf fere d a concu ssi on. My a ttor ney ne ver use d the infor mati on to se e 28 Id. 29 Id. at 40 - 41.

7 if I we re fit f or trial. The co ncus sion o ccur red two we eks prior to th e inci dent I suffe red a nothe r concu ssi on the s ame day as th e inte rrogation 30 6. In Sha rp’ s lette r to Mr. Colli ns date d Octo ber 6, 2 025, h e “reca p[s],” “summ arizes eve rything,” and allo ws tha t his e arlier let ter “should s uffice,” as his respo nse to the M otion t o Wi thdra w. 31 In it he l ists i n bulle t point fash ion i ssue s he would like the C our t to cons ider. The y are: • Poli ce miscond uct and in terrogation • Police coerc ion • Never kne w I wa s bei ng in terr ogate d, under the impre ssio n of an inter view • Credi bility o f my co - def en dant (A nnika Stalc zyn ski (“Annik a)) • Annik a lie d to t he p olice seve ral t imes t o Dela ware State Poli ce Inve stigator s • Annik a thr ew ev iden ce in m y backya rd to fr ame m e for the cr ime (Ring C ame ra ne ver pre sented) • ADHD s ince I was fo ur y ear s’ ol d (medi cal docume nt s forthc oming) • Autism (me dica l docume nts forthc oming) – w asn ’t con fi rmed • Multi ple con cussions b efore the polic e inte rview/int errogation 32 7. In it s resp ons e, the Stat e c ontend s t hat al l of S harp’s c laim s ex cept his IAC cl aims a re bar red, either by Rul e 61(i)(3) beca use th ey wer e not raise d at tr ial or 30 D.I. 154 at E x D. 31 Id. at Ex. G. 32 Id.

8 on dir ect a ppea l, or in the c ase o f his juror i ssue, by R ule 6 1(i)(4) because it wa s forme rly a djud icate d at tria l and on d irec t appea l. 33 The Stat e argue s tha t Shar p’ s IAC c laims f ail beca use t hey ar e en tirel y co nclu sory and a re insu ffic ient ly deta iled to prove I AC. 34 8 Under Dela ware S upe rior C our t Rules of Crim inal P roce dure, a motion for po stco nvic tion r elief ca n be barr ed for time lim ita tions, successi ve mo tio ns, proce dural defau lt, or former adju dicat ion. 35 A mo tion excee ds time l imita tions if i t is fi led mo re t han o ne ye ar a fter t he c onvic tio n beco me s fina l, or, if it asser ts a retr oacti vely app lica ble ri ght tha t is ne wly rec ogniz ed af ter the judgm ent o f conv icti on is final, more tha n one year a fter the ri ght wa s first r eco gniz ed by the Supre me C ourt of De lawar e or t he U nite d State s Su preme Cour t. 36 A second or subse que nt mot ion is con sider ed succes sive and ther efore barr ed and su bjec t to summa ry d ismi ssal unles s the m ovant wa s con victe d af ter a tr ial and “ plead s wi th partic ularity t hat n ew evi denc e ex ists t hat c reat es a st ron g infer ence that the m ov ant is act uall y inn ocent in fac t of th e acts u nder lyin g the c har ges of whic h he wa s conv icted ” or “ pleads w ith partic ular ity a cla im t hat a new rule of co nst ituti onal law, made re troacti ve to case s on collate ral re vie w by the Unite d Sta tes Su prem e Co urt or 33 Stat e’s Re sp. at 12 - 14, D.I. 159. 34 Id. at 14 - 18. 35 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i). 36 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1).

9 the D elawa re S upre me C ourt, app lies to the movant' s case and re nders the c onv icti on... invalid. ” 37 Groun ds for r elie f “no t ass erte d in the proce edi ngs le adi ng to t he judgm ent of c onvi ction ” are bar red a s proce dura lly defau lted unle ss the m ovan t can show “ cause for re lie f” and “ prej udice f rom [the] viola tion. ” 38 Gro unds f or re lie f forme rly a djud icate d in the case, incl uding “proc eedi ngs lea ding to the j udgm ent o f conv icti on, i n an a ppe al, i n a p ost - co nvic tio n pro ceedi ng, or i n a f edera l ha beas c orpus hear ing” a re ba rre d. 39 The bar s to relie f do not a pply e ithe r to a c laim t hat t he cour t lacke d jur isdic tion or to a claim t hat plea ds wit h partic ularity tha t new evi dence exist s that cre ates a str ong i nfere nce of act ual inn oce nce, 40 11. B efo re a ddre ssing the m eri ts of a d e fen dant’ s m otion for p ostconvi ction r elief, the C ourt must firs t app ly the proc edura l bar s of S uper ior C ourt Cr im inal R ule 61(i). 41 If a proce dural bar e xists, th en the Cour t will not co nsider th e merits of the postc onviction claim. 42 12. This P CR is bot h time ly and Sharp’ s first. T herefor e the b ars of Ru les 61(i)(1) and (2) d o not a pply. Furt her, h is IAC cla ims, whic h cou ld no t have been raise d befo re, ar e not bar red b y Rule 61(i). However, no ne of his ot her cl aims, exce pt 37 Super. Ct. Crim R. 61(i)(2); S uper. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 38 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3). 39 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4). 40 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 41 Youn ger v. Sta te, 58 0 A. 2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990). 42 Id.

10 his jur or claim, wer e “as serte d in the p rocee ding s lea ding to t he j udgme nt of conv icti on.” Al l of the m are barre d as p roced ura lly def ault ed by Ru le 61(i)(3). Shar p has not at tem pte d to show “c ause f or rel ief” or “pr ej udice fr om [the ] viol ati on” in or der t o ma ke the bar inap plic able. Hi s juror claim, whic h was adj udic ated i n both t his Cour t and on d irec t ap peal is barred a s formerly a djudicate d by Rule 61(i)(4). 13. The C ourt tur ns the n to the o nly rem ain ing c laim s – his IA C cla ims. To succe ssf ully bri ng an IAC claim, a claim ant mu st dem onstr ate: (1) tha t counse l’s perf orma nce wa s def icie nt; an d (2) th at the deficienc ies preju dic ed the cl aim ant b y depri vin g him of a f air tr ial wi th rel iable r esu lts. 43 To pr ove co unsel ’s def icie ncy, a defe ndan t must sh ow that couns el’s r epre sent ation f ell be low an object ive sta ndard of reas ona blene ss. 44 Moreo ver, a de fenda nt mus t make c oncrete al lega tion s of actua l pre judic e and s ubs tantia te th em or r isk s ummar y dismissa l. 45 C onclus ory an d unsup port ed cl aims o f prej udic e are in suffi cient t o esta blish inef fect ive ass ista nce; a defe ndan t must m ake a nd su bsta ntia te conc rete claim s of actual pre judic e. 46 Simila rl y, concl usor y an d unsu ppor ted c laim s tha t co unse l fai led t o in vesti gate a defe ndan t’s cas e are insuffici ent to e stab lish IAC. 47 “[A] co urt mu st in dulge in a 43 Stri ckland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (198 4). 44 Id. at 667 - 68. 45 Wright v. Stat e, 671 A.2d 135 3, 1356 (Del. 199 6). 46 Daws on v. Sta te, 673 A.2d 1186, 1196 (Del. 1 996). 47 Id.

11 stro ng pres umpt ion t hat co unse l’s con duct f alls wi thi n the wide range of reas onable profe ssio nal as sis tanc e.” 48 A succe ssful Six th A mendm ent c laim of IAC req uir es a showi ng “t hat t here is a re asona ble proba bilit y tha t, b ut for c oun sel’ s unp rofes sio nal error s, the resu lt of t he proc eeding wo uld have bee n differe nt. ” 49 An inma te m us t sati sfy th e proo f req uirem en ts of bot h pro ngs to suc cee d on an IAC. F ailure to do so on e ithe r pro ng wi ll doom the c laim a nd the Co urt ne ed no t addr ess the ot her. 50 14. The Court tu rns f irst to the pre judice p rong be cau se an a naly sis of that prong mak es it u nnec essar y to ad dres s the per form anc e pron g. The e vide nce aga inst Shar p was en orm ousl y stro ng. W hat fol low s is a sum mar y of som e of th e overw helm ing e vide nce the St ate of fer ed to the ju ry to co nvinc e it t o con vict S harp. The Sta te prese nted down loa ded iClo ud convers ations between Sharp and Stalc zynski disc ussi ng the ir pla ns to murder Madi son Sparro w and dispo s e of he r body. 51 It played a survei lla nce vide o from M cCla rey Elemen tary School sho wing Shar p with a bat in his ha nd near the woo ds wher e he b ludge oned Ma dison S parrow to death with tha t bat. 52 Four So bies ki emp loyee s tes tifie d that ther e wa s a you ng white fema le and a young bla ck male carr ying a shove l and a bucket coming out of 48 Stric kla nd, 446 U.S. at 689. 49 Id. at 694. 50 Stric kla nd, 46 6 U.S. at 6 97; Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 8 11, 825 (D el. 2 013) (“ Stric kland is a two - pro nge d test, a nd there is no ne ed t o exam ine w het her a n attor ney pe rfo rme d defic ient ly if t he de fic ienc y did not pr eju dice the def endant.”). 51 See, Sta te’s Tr. Ex. 33. 52 See, Sta te’s Tr. E x. 78.

12 the w oods le adi ng to t he bur ial si te. 53 Sharp’ s foot prin t was locate d in the mud near Madis on S parr ow’s shal low gr ave. 54 If that e vide nce we re not eno ugh, the St ate prese nte d the da mni ng ev iden ce of S talcz yns ki’s test imon y and Sharp’ s videota ped confe ssion, inclu din g a vide o of S har p leadi ng inve stigator s to Madis on Spa rrow’s body. 55 In res ponse, Sha rp make s no effort to exp lain how hi s conc lusory al lega tions creat ed a “re ason able probab ilit y that, b ut for co unse l’s un profe ssio nal er rors, the resul t of the proce edi ng wo uld ha ve bee n diff erent. ” Wer e he to h ave ma de tha t effor t, it w oul d have been futile. The State ’s ca se wa s so str ong t hat t here is no reas onable pro babi lity t hat, but fo r cou nsel ’s alle ged unprof es sional e rrors, t he result of the tr ial woul d hav e been d iffer ent. The C ourt h as no doubt a bou t the re lia bilit y of the ver dict. S harp’ s IAC claim fai ls. 15. Accord ing ly, ha ving ca ref ully re viewed the recor d itse lf, the Cour t concu rs wi th Mr. C ollin s tha t Shar p’s postconv icti on cla ims a re who lly wit hou t meri t suc h that he coul d not e thic ally a dvoca te them. It rea ffi rms i ts dec ision t o decli ne Sha rp ’s invit atio n to a ppoi nt ne w po stcon vict ion c oun sel a s tha t req uest is simi larly wi tho ut merit. THEREFORE, for the re aso ns sta ted above Noa h Shar p’s Motio n for 53 Trial Tr. (Oct. 26, 202 2) at 120:21 - 12 2:1. Stalc zynsk i was a yo ung whit e fema le and Sha rp was a y oung bl ack male. 54 See, Sta te’s Tr. E x. 101. 55 See, Sta te’s Tr. Exs. 79, 85.

13 P ostc onvic tion R elief is DEN IED. The Motion to Withdr aw as Co unse l of Patrick J. Col lins, Esq uire is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDE RED. /s/ Ferris W. Wharton Ferris W. Wharton, J.