Summary
dismissing defendant's claims where the "defendant failed to set forth his claims with specificity and supporting facts."
Summary of this case from State v. HambyOpinion
ID# 0001000698
Date Submitted: May 30, 2002
Date Decided: July 26, 2002
UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
ORDER
On this 26th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the Motion for Postconviction Relief filed by the Defendant and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On January 3, 2001, Defendant entered a guilty plea to Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pros the remaining four charges against Defendant: attempted robbery, unlawful imprisonment, terroristic threatening, and offensive touching. The plea agreement allowed for open sentencing. On March 16, 2001, Defendant was sentenced to ten years at Level V, suspended after five years for supervision Level IV, suspended after six months for supervision Level III, suspended after two years and six months for supervision Level II. This is Defendant's first Motion for Postconviction Relief in which he wants to withdraw his guilty plea.
(2) In evaluating a postconviction relief motion, the Court must first ascertain if any procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) apply to the case. If a procedural bar is found to exist, the Court should refrain from considering the merits of the individual claims.
See Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990); Super.Ct.Civ.R. 61(i).
See Id.
(3) Summary dismissal is provided for pursuant to Rule 61(d)(4) "[i]f it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief, the judge may enter an order for its summary dismissal . . ." This Court will not address claims for postconviction relief that are conclusory and unsubstantiated. Pursuant to Rule 61(a), a motion for postconviction relief must be based on "a sufficient factual and legal basis." In addition, pursuant to Rule 61(b)(2), "[t]he motion shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to movant . . ., and shall be set forth in summary from the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified." Here, Defendant has failed to set forth his claims with specificity and supporting facts.
See Younger., 580 A.2d at 555; State v. Conlow, Cr. A. No. IN78-09-0985R1, Herlihy, J. (Del.Super. Oct. 5, 1990) at 5; State v. Gallo, Cr. A. No. IN87-03-0589-0594, at *10, Gebelein, J. (Del.Super. Sept. 2, 1988).
(4) Defendant pled guilty to this charge, in doing so he signified that he understood the constitutional rights he was relinquishing by his plea. A defendant is bound by the statements he made on the signed Plea Form and during the in court colloquy unless he proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Defendant stated that he read and answered truthfully all of the questions on the Truth in Sentencing and Plea Agreement Forms. Defendant indicated to the Court that he had discussed the plea agreement with his attorney and further specified that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation. Defendant acknowledged his guilt as to the offense to which he pled guilty. Moreover, Defendant indicated that no one made any promises as to what the Court would sentence him and that he understood that he could receive up to twenty years in prison plus fines.
Hickman, at 3-4; Smith v. State, No. 465, 1989, Walsh, J. (Del. Jan. 4, 1990) (ORDER).
(5) Defendant wants to withdraw his guilty plea as he received a sentence of five years imprisonment and not three years. Three years imprisonment is the minimum mandatory for this offense. The statutory penalty for the charge for which Defendant pled guilty allows up to twenty years imprisonment plus fines. Clearly Defendant's sentence is legal on its face, thus this ground for relief lacks merit.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.