Opinion
No. 481, 1998.
June 21, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Sussex County, CrA S96060141.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below.
THURMON L. HITCHENS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 481, 1998. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 15, 1999. Decided: June 21, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County: Cr.A. No. S96060141.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 21st day of June 1999, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1. Thurmon L. Hitchens appeals the denial by the Superior Court of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. The motion is without merit.
2. Hitchens claims that the sentencing judge did not address him personally in open court and inform him personally of the mandatory mini mum penalty and maximum possible penalty for the offense to which he pled guilty.
3. In June 1998, after a jury was selected for a trial on the charges against Hitchens for first degree murder and two companion weapon charges in which the State was seeking the death penalty, Hitchens decided to accept the State's plea offer and entered a guilty plea to first degree murder as a non-capital offense. The State then entered a nolle prosequi to the two companion weapon charges.
4. While it may have been preferable for the trial judge to have interrogated the defendant personally concerning each of the nine important aspects of a guilty plea as outlined in Brown v. State, Del. Supr., 250 A.2d 503, 509 (1969), it is clear from a careful review of the record that Hitchens was well aware that the only possible sentence he could have received was life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole. Any possible error therefore was, at most, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Del. Super. Ct. Cr. R. 11(h).
5. In response to his counsel, Hitchens stated in open court that he understood what the mandatory sentence was that would be imposed. The Truth-in-Sentence form signed by Hitchens also explicitly set forth the only sentence that could be imposed. See Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629 (1997).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ MAURICE A. HARTNETT, III,
Justice