Opinion
RE: Defendant I.D. #9806006480. SBI #00244516.
June 28, 2002.
Motion for Recusal and Motion for Correction of Sentence, RE: Defendant I.D. #9806006480, SBI #00244516
Dear Mr. White:
The Court has received your Motion for Recusal and Motion for Correction of Sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a).
In your Motion for Recusal, you argue that errors were committed by me on January 5, 1999, the day you entered your guilty plea. You argue those errors as the reason as to why I should no longer be involved in your case. I disagree. You appealed this Court's decision concerning the entry of your guilty plea. The issues you raised in your Motion for Recusal and Motion for Correction of Sentence under Rule 35(a) are the same. The issue is that you believe you had the right to enter a guilty plea under Rule 11(e)(1)(c) and receive the benefit of a sentence under that Rule.
The problem with your argument is that you did not enter the agreement under Rule 11(e)(1)(c) at the last opportunity to do so which was on your final case review. You offered to plead guilty under Rule 11(e)(1)(c) on the morning of trial, but pursuant to this Court's policy, the Court would not accept a Rule 11(e)(1)(c) plea agreement on the morning of trial. The Court allowed you to plead to a lesser charge with the benefit of a presentence investigation. You were fully informed in the colloquy of the Court's ruling and desired to proceed with the guilty plea.
This specific issue was raised on appeal and it has been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Your conviction and sentence were affirmed. Donald R. White v. State of Delaware, Del. Supr., No. 299, 2000, Steele, J. (December 21, 2001) (ORDER). With this background, I see no reason why I should recuse myself from your present Motion.
Your present Motion is labeled a Rule 35 Motion but it is actually a Motion pursuant to Rule 61 seeking postconviction relief.
Under Rule 61(i)(4), I find that this matter has been previously adjudicated. It was adjudicated on your appeal and reconsideration of the same claim is not warranted in the interest of justice. Your Motion for Correction of Sentence which the Court deems to be a Rule 61 application is denied as it is procedurally barred.
IT IS SO ORDERED.