Opinion
ID# 0105021510, 0103002014
May 24, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
Now this 24TH day of May, 2002, upon Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea, after hearing held on May 24, 2002, it is the finding of the Court as follows:
1) On June 28, 2001 defendant entered a plea of guilty to Shoplifting, Felony and Escape After Conviction, Felony.
2) At the time defendant entered his plea of guilty he was represented by counsel, Joseph A. Gabay, Esquire.
3) Defendant testified that at the time of his plea he was unaware that the eight year sentence he would receive as a result of his plea was a mandatory sentence.
4) Defendant's written plea agreement indicated that the defendant admitted he was qualified as an habitual offender.
5) The plea agreement was offered under the terms of Rule 11(e)(1)(C), restricting the State to ask for the minimum required sentence under the habitual offender statute.
6) The plea agreement indicated a "Minimum/Mandatory" sentence of eight years was required for conviction of Escape After Conviction.
7) At his plea colloquy the defendant was again informed by his Attorney"
"as a habitual offender he is required to receive as a minimum sentence the maximum statutory penalties set forth in the Code, which under the Escape After Conviction would be eight years."
8) At the plea colloquy the Court asked the defendant if he understood that under the agreement:
". . . the State agrees that they will seek only the eight year sentence under the habitual offender law for the Violation on the Escape After Conviction . . ."
9) The offender clearly understood at the time of the plea that he could receive a sentence of up to life imprisonment.
10) The offender had also previously entered a plea including his designation as an habitual offender.
11) The offender was asked if he was guilty of Escape After Conviction, and answered that he was in fact guilty.
12) Pursuant to the habitual offender statute any sentence imposed under subsection (a) is subject to 11 Del. § 4205(h), 4217, 4381, 4382, i.e., allows for good time, sentence modification and flow down.
13) It is absolutely clear that defendant understood that the Court under the habitual offender statute would have to impose the minimum eight year Level V sentence for the Escape After Conviction charge.
14) The defendant seemed at the hearing to misconstrue his sentence as a "minimum mandatory" sentence requiring day for day credit when in fact it is subject to reduction for good time making it a "minimum" sentence.
15) Nothing offered at the hearing indicated that any defense exists to the charge of Escape After Conviction.
16) Counsel testified that the minimum eight year sentence was explained to the defendant in detail prior to the entry of the plea.
17) On defendant's plea agreement it is written that defendant "agrees to 8 yr. L — 5. 4214(a) on EAC."
18) Counsel also testified that a motivating factor for entry of the plea was the impending abolition of Rule 11(e)(1)(c), and this was discussed at the plea colloquy.
19) Defendant clearly understood his rights at the time of entry of the plea.
20) There is no basis for withdrawal of this plea.
Wherefore, defendant's Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea be and is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.