Opinion
RE: #9909019687(R1) SBI #305125
June 26, 2002
RE: #9909019687(R1)
Dear Mr. Rogers:
On May 17, 2002, the Court received your Motion for Postconviction Relief. I have reviewed your Motion, together with that of your brother and co-defendant, Christopher Rogers, this Court's file, and a transcript of the guilty plea. Your application for Postconviction Relief is denied.
In the fall of 1999, you were indicted for two robberies in the first degree, several counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, two counts of possession of firearm during the commission of a felony, several counts of conspiracy, criminal mischief, criminal impersonation, possession of a firearm with a removed, obliterated or altered serial number, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon.
It is noteworthy that your brother, Christopher Rogers, was charged with the same offenses, plus other offenses. As you were indicted together, the case moved through the system together. Each of you had individual Court-appointed attorneys.
A review of the docket of the case evidences the discovery activity which took place. In addition to traditional discovery, you also had the benefit of receipt of many police reports. Prior to your trial, a suppression hearing took place. On the morning of March 27, 2000, you selected your jury. Shortly thereafter, the Court was informed you wished to change your plea from not guilty to guilty. The Court accepted a guilty plea to robbery in the first degree, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a firearm by a person prohibited, conspiracy in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a Jermaine G. Rogers Page 2 June 26, 2002 felony. With the benefit of a Presentence investigation, you were sentenced to a period of 19 years at Level V followed by probation. You did not appeal. A subsequent Motion for Modification of Sentence was denied.
In the Motion for Rule 61 Petition, the grounds you allege are all based in ineffective assistance of counsel. You allege that your attorney did not allow you to set the objectives and goals in your case. You allege that the decision to plead guilty was coerced because of the lack of work and effort by your attorney. You complain that your attorney did not meet with you enough and did not act with diligence and promptness. Finally, you complain that communication between you and your attorney was poor and unreasonable, and did not permit you to make an informed decision about your guilty plea. You attach a form memorandum which has your name written on the top which generally complains about the plea agreement process and that the system is geared toward plea negotiations as opposed to trials.
I note that your complaints concerning your Court-appointed attorney mirror the complaints of your brother concerning his Court-appointed attorney.
There are no procedural bars under Rule 61 to this application because this is your first postconviction application and it was filed within three years from the date of your conviction. It is based in ineffective assistance of counsel, a claim that can only be brought on Postconviction application.
Since your claim is based in ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court is guided by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984). You must establish two things in order to be successful. You must show that your attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In other words, you must show that your attorney made errors which fell below an objective standard. The second thing you must prove is that your attorney's errors actually prejudiced you. In other words but for the errors, the result would have been different. Since your conviction was the result of a guilty plea, you must show that you would not have pled guilty and insisted on going to trial, but for the errors by your attorney which prejudiced you. Albury v. State, Del. Supr., 551 A.2d 53 (1988).
You have failed to meet the aforementioned legal standard. Your allegations are general and conclusory. They are insufficient to form a basis that your lawyer was ineffective, i.e., that he made specific mistakes or errors in the preparation or lack of preparation of your case.
Furthermore, you are bound by your answers provided to the Court under oath when your plea was offered in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629 (1997). At the plea colloquy, you had the advantage of hearing your brother enter his plea before you offered your plea to the Court. You understood the sentence range was 11 years, minimum mandatory, up to 90 years incarceration. You reported to me that you were Jermaine G. Rogers Page 3 June 26, 2002 satisfied with your attorney; had no complaints concerning him, and had had enough time to talk with him about your case. You also reported that neither your attorney nor anyone else was forcing you to enter the pleas. I reviewed fully your constitutional rights trial, including the right to a jury trial, noting that you had selected a jury that morning but were waiving your right to proceed and desired to enter the plea.
You advised me that you understood the guilty plea form and had reviewed it with your attorney and had filled it in accurately. You acknowledged your guilt to each of the offenses to which you pled guilty. I asked you if you had thought about this and whether or not this was your personal decision and you reported yes. I told you that you would not be able to come back later and say "I was forced to do this" and that this was then your opportunity to "speak now or forever hold your peace". You reported that you understood it and that you wanted to proceed with the guilty plea.
In light of this record and in light of the conclusory nature of the allegations, I find that your complaint concerning your attorney being ineffective is without merit and your application is denied. You have neither shown any shortcomings in your attorney's performance nor have you shown any prejudice.
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.