Summary
dismissing the defendant's Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief, stating that "[t]he sentencing recommendations of the State, negotiated as part of a plea agreement, are not binding on the Court
Summary of this case from State v. MaddreyOpinion
Cr. ID No. 0509010302A.
Submitted: April 5, 2007.
Decided: April 11, 2007.
ORDER
This 11th day of April, 2007, upon consideration of the defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief, it appears that:
1. Defendant has filed this Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
2. On June 27, 2006, defendant Dwayne A. Walker pled guilty to one count of Murder 2nd in Superior Court.
3. On September 8, 2006, the defendant was sentenced on the charge of Murder 2nd to thirty years at Level V suspended after twenty years for ten years at Level IV, suspended after six months for the balance to be served at Level III. The first fifteen years of the sentence is a mandatory minimum pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 635.
4. Defendant did not file a direct appeal of his conviction.
5. On December 1, 2006, the defendant filed a pro se motion for sentence reduction, based on the facts that the State's recommendation at sentencing was less than the sentence imposed, that the defendant showed remorse at the time of sentencing, and that defendant was planning to complete a number of behavior modification and substance abuse programs while incarcerated.
6. On December 7, 2006, the defendant, through counsel, filed a motion for sentence modification based on the fact that the judge did not follow the State's recommended sentence.
7. On December 7, 2006, the motion for sentence modification was denied with the following notation, "the request for modification is denied. The sentence was reasonable, and it terminated his legal responsibility for three other [violations of probation] charges which were discharged."
8. On December 29, 2006, the pro se motion for sentence reduction was denied with the following notation, "The sentence is appropriate for all the reasons stated at the time of sentencing. No additional information has been provided to the Court which would warrant a reduction or modification of this sentence."
9. On April 3, 2007, the defendant filed this motion for post-conviction relief alleging that the trial judge abused her discretion by failing to sentence in accordance with the State's recommended sentence.
10. Both of defendant's previous motions for reduction/modification of sentence based on the same grounds have been denied.
11. The sentencing recommendations of the State, negotiated as part of a plea agreement, are not binding on the Court. The Truth in Sentencing guilty plea form, signed by the defendant clearly informed him that the sentencing range for Murder 2nd is fifteen years to life.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e)(1)(B).
12. The sentence was well within the statutorily authorized limits and, thus, provides Walker no grounds for relief.
Pursuant to 11 Del. C. §§ 635, 4205 authorizing not less than 15 years up to life imprisonment for a Class A Felony.
Gaines v. State, 571 A.2d 765, 766-67 (Del. 1990).
13. The defendant's petition fails to state a legal basis for a collateral attack on his conviction or sentence.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1).
WHEREFORE, defendant's motion for post-conviction relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.