Opinion
No. 47, 2006.
Submitted: March 16, 2006.
Decided: May 24, 2006.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, Cr. ID No. 0204005718.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 24th day of May 2006, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Thomas E. Eaddy, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's January 12, 2006 order denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the appellant's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM.
Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
(2) In August 2002, Eaddy pleaded guilty to Possession of Heroin With Intent to Deliver, one of several drug offenses with which he had been charged. Eaddy was sentenced to 20 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after a mandatory term of 15 years for 5 years of Level IV supervision. The remaining drug charges were dismissed.
(3) In March 2004, Eaddy moved for postconviction relief on the ground that his attorney had provided ineffective assistance. The Superior Court summarily denied the motion and Eaddy did not file an appeal. Eaddy again moved for postconviction relief in November 2005 and raised two additional claims of ineffective assistance. The Superior Court again summarily dismissed the motion on the ground that Eaddy had failed to demonstrate that, but for his counsel's unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded guilty, but instead would have insisted on proceeding to trial.
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985).
(4) In this appeal, Eaddy claims that the Superior Court should have granted his motion for postconviction relief because his counsel failed to share information with him on a timely basis and failed to fully explain to him the consequences of pleading guilty.
(5) We find that Eaddy's postconviction motion was properly denied, albeit on a different basis than that cited by the Superior Court. Because Eaddy's claims of ineffective assistance were either known or should have been known at the time he filed his previous postconviction motion, they are barred in this proceeding. Moreover, we do not find either that consideration of these claims is warranted in the interest of justice or that Eaddy has presented a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice that would permit our consideration of his claims.
Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995).
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2).
Id.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).
(6) It is manifest on the face of Eaddy's opening brief that the appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.