Opinion
Def. ID# 9905000173.
DATE SUBMITTED: April 24, 2003.
"Unfortunately, there was a considerable delay in obtaining a transcription of the plea colloquy.
May 7, 2003.
Dear Mr. Hatchett:
Pending before the Court is the motion of Alfred Hatchett ("defendant") for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 ("Rule 61"). This is my decision denying the motion.
On October 18, 1999, defendant entered into a Robinson plea. As a part of the plea colloquy, the Court went over with defendant both the Plea Agreement form ("Plea Agreement") and the Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea form ("TIS form"), and it questioned defendant closely regarding his understanding of, and voluntariness in entering, the plea. Pertinent to this motion are the following facts.
Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279 (Del. 1972)
On his TIS form, defendant answered "Yes" to the following questions:
Have you freely and voluntarily decided to plead guilty [Robinson] to the charges listed in your written plea agreement?
Are you satisfied with your lawyer's representation of you and that your lawyer has fully advised of your rights and of your guilty plea?
He answered "No" to the following questions:
Have you been promised anything that is not stated in your written plea agreement?
Has your attorney, the State or anyone threatened or forced you to enter this plea?
During the plea colloquy, defendant told the Court he was satisfied with his attorney's representation of him and had no complaints about such representation.
The TIS form and the Plea Agreement make clear that defendant was facing a maximum Level 5 period of forty-three (43) years with a minimum mandatory period of three (3) years at Level 5. The Plea Agreement and the colloquy clarify that defendant would be sentenced only after a presentence investigation was undertaken.
The State of Delaware, in setting forth the plea, stated: "We are recommending that there be a presentence investigation. . . ." Transcript of Guilty Plea taken on October 18, 1999 at 3 ("Tr. at ___").
Defense counsel stated:
I believe Mr. Hatchett realizes that, Your Honor, then, because this is a PSI will have sole discretion in sentencing him. He's exposing himself to 43 years in prison which is a huge amount of time for a 22 year old, although the presumptive is a lot less than that. Tr. at 5-6.
The Court went over the maximum amount of Level 5 time on each charge which defendant was facing, and defendant represented that he understood what he was facing. The following exchange then occurred:
THE COURT: Do you understand there's going to be a presentence report done?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And under the presentence report, I don't know anything about you but the presentence people do a pretty thorough investigation. If you have a criminal record, that will come out in the investigation, your background will come out in the investigation, you'll be interviewed, the victim will be interviewed.
The presentence report also will try to determine the restitution . . . and all this gets put together in a package and is presented to a judge; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you understand when the judge gets it, following than you'll be brought in for sentencing and you could be facing, as Mr. Willard said, the judge could give you 44 years in prison; do you understand that?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: So if the judge gives you 44 years in prison, I am not saying that's going to happen, but that's what you are exposed to, if the judge gives you 44 years in prison, don't be writing letters to the judge and saying I have had issues, because it's gone today. Okay?
DEFENDANT: Yes.
Tr. at 9-14.
Defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily entered into the plea.
On January 3, 2000, defendant was sentenced to thirty-three (33) years at Level 5; after serving ten (10) years at Level 5 (three (3) of which are mandatory) and completing the Key Program, the balance is suspended for varying periods of probation.
He did not appeal therefrom.
In his motion for postconviction relief, defendant makes claims of unfulfilled plea agreement, coerced guilty plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserts that the plea discussed with him was ten (10) years, suspended after serving three (3) years and after successfully completing the Key Program. He maintains his attorney coerced him into signing the plea because his attorney represented the sentence would be three (3) years at Level 5 and the completion of the Key Program and his attorney told him it was a good plea. He argues his attorney gave him false information and were it not for that false information, which constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, he would not have entered the plea.
Normally, the Court spends time examining the procedural impediments of Rule 61 and then determining if defendant has established exceptions to the procedural bars. In the situation here, where a review of what occurred during the taking of the plea establishes that defendant's pending motion is meritless and frivolous, the Court will not waste its time reviewing the procedural bars. Defendant freely and voluntarily entered into the plea with full and absolute understanding that there was no promise regarding the sentence and that he was facing forty-three (43) years at Level 5. He has not produced any evidence at all which would prevent this Court from considering him to be bound by his sworn statements and the written documents submitted during the taking of the plea. Rogers v. State, Del. Supr., No. 473, 2002, Holland, J. (April 29, 2003); Fullman v. State, 560 A.2d 490 (Del. 1989). This Rule 61 motion is summarily dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.