Opinion
ID No. 9709015080. Nos. K97-10-0237I-R1, K97-10-0238I-R1.
February 18, 2000.
ORDER
On this 18th day of February, 2000, upon consideration of the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On March 30, 1998, the day his trial was to begin, the defendant, Joseph Bennett ("Bennett") pled guilty to one count of Robbery in the First Degree, 11 Del. C. § 832 and one count of Criminal Mischief, 11 Del. C. § 811. At the request of the parties, a presentence office investigation was ordered. Prior to Bennett's entering the guilty plea, the State put Bennett, his attorney, and the Court on notice of its intention to file a motion to declare Bennett a habitual offender. On April 7, 1998, the State formally filed its motion to declare Bennett a habitual offender. The motion was heard by the Court on August 21, 1998 before Bennett's scheduled sentencing. At the request of Bennett's counsel, the Court ordered Bennett to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial and be sentenced. Prior to his sentencing, the Court found Bennett competent based upon the psychiatric evaluations. At the hearing on his habitual offender status, Bennett acknowledged he had the requisite felony convictions and did not oppose the motion.
Transcript of guilty plea colloquy ("plea colloquy") at 3-7. See also the Plea Agreement between Bennett and the State.
Transcript of Colloquy Before Sentencing at 5.
The Court proceeded to grant the State's motion and declared Bennett a habitual offender. Next, the Court sentenced Bennett to 40 years incarceration pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) to be served consecutively to a Sussex County sentence. Bennett did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court. Instead he filed the pending motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Maybee pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be denied as procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) and as meritless. No objections to the Report have been filed.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated January 21, 2000,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(A) The well-reasoned Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court;
(B) The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED .