Opinion
No. 245, 2002
Submitted: June 14, 2002
Decided: July 24, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 0004013377.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
BRANDON AYERS, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 245, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: June 14, 2002 Decided: July 24, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
MYRON T. STEELE, Justice.
This 24th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief, the State's motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In October 2001, on the day his trial was scheduled to begin, the defendant-appellant Brandon Ayers pleaded guilty to four drug offenses. The Superior Court immediately sentenced Ayers to seven and a half years imprisonment, suspended after five years for two and a half years probation. In January 2002, Ayers filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the Superior Court summarily denied. This appeal followed. The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Ayers' opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) Ayers raises the following three issues in his opening brief on appeal: (i) his counsel was ineffective; (ii) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; and (iii) the police failed to provide him with Miranda warnings. It is well-settled, however, that a voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any alleged defects or errors occurring prior to the entry of the plea. Accordingly, we conclude that Ayers has waived any claims concerning either the State's alleged failure to disclose evidence or the alleged failure to give Miranda warnings.
See Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 311-12 (Del. 1988).
(3) With respect to his claim that his counsel was ineffective, Ayers contends that his counsel failed to maintain contact with him and failed to subpoena credible witnesses for his defense. Ayers' postconviction motion failed to identify with specificity any alleged witnesses that his counsel failed to contact. Moreover, the Superior Court directed defense counsel to respond to Ayers' allegations, and defense counsel contradicted Ayers' assertions. Accordingly, we find no error or abuse in the Superior Court's conclusion that Ayers's conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were unsupported by the record. Consequently, we find it to be manifest on the face of Ayers' opening brief that his appeal is without merit.
Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59-60 (Del. 1988).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.