Opinion
No. 446, 2000
Submitted: December 26, 2000
Decided: January 26, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
ORDER
This 26th day of January 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Ronelle L. Jones, filed this appeal from an August 25, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for specific performance of his plea agreement. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2) In this appeal, Jones claims that he was promised a sentence of 5 years incarceration at Level V, but actually received a sentence of 15 years incarceration at Level V, as reflected in his written plea agreement. He asks that his sentence be reduced to 5 years incarceration at Level V.
(3) Jones was indicted on charges of trafficking in cocaine and delivery of cocaine. On the morning of trial, Jones pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine. He was sentenced to 30 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 15 years for 6 months at Level III probation, 4 years at Level II probation and 4 years at Level I probation. Jones did not file a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence. Jones did, however, file a motion for postconviction relief claiming that he had agreed to serve only 5 years at Level V. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied Jones' motion for postconviction relief. This Court affirmed the Superior Court's decision on appeal.
(4) Jones' claim is procedurally barred because it was formerly adjudicated by the Superior Court in a postconviction proceeding, which included an evidentiary hearing, and the record does not support reconsideration of the claim in the interest of justice.
Jones' motion is in essence a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
The guilty plea was pursuant to a Rule 11(e)(1)(C) agreement.
The evidentiary hearing focused on the Superior Court's failure to pursue further questioning of Jones during the plea colloquy after he answered "yes" to the Superior Court judge's question, "Did anybody promise you anything, other than what is in here?" Following the evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court ruled that it had erred, but that the error was harmless and Jones' guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
Jones v. State, Del. Supr., No. 99, 1999, Veasey, C.J., 1999 WL 1090566 (Oct. 14, 1999) (ORDER).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.