Opinion
Defendant ID No. 0202004945(R1).
April 28, 2003.
Dear Mr. Fisher:
The Court is in receipt of your Motion for Postconviction Relief dated April 14, 2003. I have reviewed your application and find it procedurally barred.
On June 14, 2002, you pled nolle contendere to the offense of unlawful sexual contact in the third degree. There was a recommendation in the plea agreement to a period of one year of probation. The Court did not accept that recommendation and ordered a presentence investigation. Subsequently, you were sentenced to a year incarceration with credit for the time you had served.
You filed an appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that your guilty plea was involuntary due to an alleged breach of the plea agreement. Specifically, you argued when Superior Court deferred sentencing, ordered a presentence report, and ultimately sentenced you to a term of imprisonment, that the Court had changed the terms of the plea agreement and rendered the plea involuntary.
The Supreme Court noted the extensive plea colloquy which included a review that the plea agreement did not promise a particular sentence and that the Supreme Court was not bound by the parties' recommendation of immediate sentencing to a period of one year of probation. You acknowledged that you understood that it would be up to the sentencing judge to decide whether or not to impose the sentence that was recommended by the parties. You acknowledged that you understood that your prior offenses were going to be taken into consideration in the sentencing judge's decision. Based upon this review, the Court concluded your claim was without merit and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
In your present Motion, you allege ineffective assistance of counsel in that your attorney did not have your best interests at heart when he recommended that you take the plea in that it would be the fastest way to resolve the charges so you could go home. You allege the unfulfilled plea agreement and that you are illiterate and therefore didn't understand the complete plea process.
Your present Motion is denied for two reasons. The first is that I find it is procedurally barred in that it appears to me that all three of your complaints are basically a repackaging that you are dissatisfied with not getting the negotiated plea agreement and wish to blame your lawyer and the court. The Supreme Court decision specifically dealt with this complaint and adjudicated it. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 61(i)(4), your present application is procedurally barred.
Alternatively as to the merits, I find that these claims must be denied when one considers your sworn responses to the Court during the plea colloquy. You did acknowledge that you were illiterate but further acknowledged that you discussed the guilty plea form line-by-line with your defense attorney. I also reviewed the plea agreement with you, as well as the constitutional rights you were waiving by entering the plea. Specifically, you advised me that no one had promised you what the sentence would be and you understood that the sentencing judge could sentence you up to a year. You advised me that this was your personal decision and that you weren't being forced or coerced in anyway.
Based upon the aforementioned plea colloquy, I find that your present claims have no merit. Your complaint boils down to being dissatisfied with the sentence, but nevertheless you knew you were exposing yourself to that sentence when you entered the plea.
Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.
SO ORDERED.