Opinion
Def. ID No. 0709038224 Letter Opinion.
Date Submitted: September 4, 2008.
January 29, 2009.
William L. Purnell, Georgetown, DE.
John W. Donahue, Georgetown, DE.
James D. Nutter, Esquire, Eric G. Mooney, P.A., Georgetown, DE.
Dear Counsel and Mr. Purnell:
This is my decision on William L. Purnell's ("Purnell") motion for postconviction relief. The State of Delaware charged Purnell with Delivery of Marijuana, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The charges arose out of Purnell's delivery of marijuana to a man who was the subject of an undercover drug investigation. Purnell pled guilty to Delivery of Marijuana and was sentenced to eight years at Supervision Level V, suspended after serving three years at Supervision Level V for probation. Purnell was represented by James D. Nutter, Esquire ("Nutter").
Purnell raises three claims in his motion for postconviction relief. One, Purnell alleges that Nutter did not represent him properly. Two, Purnell alleges that he is being judged on his "previous history." Three, Purnell alleges that he is entitled to "good time" credit pursuant to 11 Del.C. § 4381.
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Purnell alleges that Nutter (1) did not talk to him enough, and (2) did not prepare for the suppression hearing and trial. In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Purnell must show (1) that Nutter's actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there exists a reasonable probability that, but for Nutter's errors, Purnell would not have pled guilty. Mere allegations of ineffectiveness will not suffice. Purnell must make specific allegations of actual prejudice and substantiate them. Moreover, any review of Nutter's representation is subject to a strong presumption that his representation of Purnell was professionally reasonable. Nutter filed an affidavit responding to Purnell's allegations.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Wright v. State, 671 A.2d 1353, 1356 (Del. 1996).
Wright, 671 A.2d at 1356; Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 555-56 (Del. 1990).
Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990).
1. Consultation
2. Preparation
II. Previous History
Purnell alleges that he is being judged by his "previous history." His argument is that the evidence against him was weak and that the only reason the State took such a hard line in plea negotiations was because he had a prior history of dealing drugs. This is no reason to set aside Purnell's guilty plea.
III. Good Time Credit
Purnell argues that he is entitled to good conduct pursuant to 11Del.C. § 4381. He pled guilty to Delivery of Marijuana. This is an offense for which "good time" credit is not available.
Rust v. Kearney, 2001 WL 1628445 (Del.Super. Sept. 27, 2001); 16Del.C. § 4751; 11 Del.C. § 4205.
CONCLUSION
William L. Purnell's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED.