Opinion
I.D. No. 0601023902.
April 1, 2008.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 1st day of April, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The appellant, Ronell S. Morris ("Morris"), filed this postconviction motion challenging his April 5, 2007 violation of probation ("VOP") adjudication and sentence. Because the Court finds no merit to Morris' claims, his motion is DENIED.
2. The record reflects that Morris pled guilty on July 31, 2006 to Possession of a Controlled Substance within 1000 feet of a School and Resisting Arrest. He was sentenced to eleven years at Level V incarceration suspended immediately for six months at Level IV Home Confinement, followed by eighteen months at Level III probation. On November 30, 2007, after holding a contested violation of probation hearing, the Court found Morris in violation of his probation for missing home visits and curfews during his hold at level III awaiting placement in Home Confinement. The Court sentenced him to serve six months at level IV Work Release instead of Home Confinement, hold at level III Plummer Center. Thereafter, Morris filed an unsuccessful motion seeking modification of his VOP sentence. On April 5, 2007, after holding a contested violation of probation hearing, the Court again found Morris in violation of probation for forging his leave pass (given for job seeking purposes) and having unaccounted for the time. He was sentenced to ten years at level V incarceration suspended after nine years for six months at Level IV Work Release.
See Plea Agreement, Docket Item ("D.I.") 19.
D.I. 19.
See D.I. 23.
See Sentence Order, D.I. 24.
Mot. for Modification of Sentence, D.I. 25.
See Administrative Warrant, D.I. 27.
See Sentence Order, D.I. 29.
3. On September 19, 2007, Morris filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising three claims: (i) his sentence was excessive for a technical violation of probation; (ii) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him at his VOP hearing that he had a right to appeal; and (iii) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and discover mitigating evidence for sentencing and for failing to adequately prepare or investigate plausible lines of defense that may have persuaded the Court to impose a less severe sentence.
See Mot. for Postconviction Relief, D.I. 32.
4. When considering a Rule 61 petition, the Superior Court is required to apply the procedural requirements before considering the merits of the petition. To protect the integrity of the procedural rules, the Court will not address the substantive aspects of the claims if a defendant's claims are procedurally barred.
5. Morris' first claim, that his sentence is excessive for a technical violation, is procedurally barred as formerly adjudicated pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4). Morris raised this same claim in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on July 27, 2007. This Court denied his claim on August 7, 2007.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4).
Writ of Habeas Corpus, D.I. 30.
Order, D.I. 31.
6. Morris next claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of his right to appeal and for failing to effectively investigate and discover mitigating evidence for sentencing. To prevail on this claim, Morris must meet the two-pronged Strickland test by showing that (1) counsel performed at a level "below an objective standard of reasonableness," and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." The first prong requires Morris to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defense counsel was not reasonably competent, while the second prong requires him to show "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for defense counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Morris fails to establish either prong of Strickland.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
Id. at 687-88, 694.
7. In her response, defense counsel states that she informed Morris of his right to appeal but advised him that he was unlikely to succeed because he admitted violating his probation. Counsel states that she also advised Morris that he could request a modification of sentence but that he may not have heard her because he repeatedly attempted to address the court as he was being led out of the courtroom. Even assuming Morris could establish some error on the part of defense counsel, the Court finds no prejudice to Morris because there clearly was competent evidence presented at the contested VOP hearing, including Morris' own admission, to support the Court's finding of a probation violation.
8. Morris next claims that defense counsel failed to effectively investigate and discover mitigating evidence for sentencing and to adequately prepare or investigate plausible lines of defense that may have persuaded the Court to impose a less severe sentence. Counsel states that she spoke with Morris prior to the hearing and he readily admitted that he forged the leave pass and wanted to advise the Court of his admission with little assistance from her. She claims that Morris told her that he wanted to address the Court and explain his reason for violating his probation because he felt that his reasons were sufficient to avoid court sanction. Counsel submits that she explained to Morris that the State was seeking the full ten year level V sentence and that the Court was unlikely to agree with his assessment. The hearing transcript reflects defense counsel's account. Accordingly, Morris fails to establish that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
See Tr. Hearing, 8:9-17:1, Docket Item ("D.I.") 37.
WHEREFORE, Defendant's motion for postconviction relief is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.