Opinion
I.D. No. 0105022893
Submitted: April 29, 2002
Decided: May 2, 2002
ORDER
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief.
Summarily Dismissed.
This 2nd day of May, 2002, upon consideration of the defendant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On August 13, 2001, Defendant, Joanne Brown, pleaded guilty to Use of a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, Criminal Impersonation, and Possession of Heroin. On November 11, 2001, the Court sentenced Defendant to a total of five years Level 5 incarceration, suspended after successful completion of the Village program for six months Level 4 confinement, followed by probation.
(2) Defendant has now filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Defendant lists as grounds for relief, "Public Defender lied," "[Public Defender] knew that I was unable to read," and "Aunt's present."
(3) Under established procedure, the Court must first determine whether Defendant has met the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before it may consider the merits of the postconviction relief claims. This is Defendant's first motion for postconviction relief and the Court determines that none of the procedural bars listed in Rule 61(i) are applicable. Therefore, the Court may consider the merits of Defendant's motion.
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del.Supr. 1990).
(4) The Court will consider Defendant's first two grounds for relief, "Public Defender lied," "[Public Defender] knew that I was unable to read," as allegations that Defendant did not enter into her plea knowingly and voluntarily. In support of her first ground for relief, Defendant alleges that her attorney told her that, if she took the plea offer, she would not have to serve any Level 5 incarceration time. The Court finds that Defendant's claim is not supported by the record in this case. Based upon a review of Defendant's guilty plea form and plea agreement, it is clear Defendant entered her plea voluntarily and without coercion.
(5) On the guilty plea form Defendant signed, she stated that she was satisfied with her lawyer's representation and that her lawyer had fully advised her of her rights and of the guilty plea. Defendant indicated that she voluntarily and freely decided to plead guilty to the charges listed in the plea agreement and that neither the State nor the public defender threatened her or forced her to enter his plea. Defendant also indicated that no one had promised her what her sentence would be.
(5) Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a defendant is bound by his signed statement on the guilty plea form. Defendant has presented no such evidence. In addition, a review of the plea colloquy transcript also shows that Defendant understood the possible sentence range for her offenses and that she entered into her plea knowingly and voluntarily.
Fullman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 268, 1988, Christie, C.J. (Feb. 22, 1989) (ORDER).
(6) In support of her second ground for relief, Defendant claims that her attorney knew that she was unable to read and that, "by me not being able to read very well, he could have told me anything and I would have signed it not really knowing exactly what it read." Again, both the guilty plea form Defendant signed and the colloquy conducted by the Court prior to acceptance of the plea indicate that Defendant entered her guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that she understood the terms of plea.
(7) Defendant indicated during the plea colloquy that she had completed the tenth grade and that she had read, understood, and signed the guilty plea form. At no time did Defendant represent to the Court that she was unable to read the guilty plea forms. As a result, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show that she did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into her plea. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's first two grounds for relief clearly are without merit.
(8) In support of her final ground for relief, "Aunt's present," Defendant states, "my aunt wanted to be there when I sign [sic] anything, but wasn't notified of court date." The Court cannot find that the presence or absence of Defendant's aunt in any way affected the legality of her guilty plea. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's final ground for relief is without merit.
In conclusion, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.