Opinion
ID. No. 00003010856
Submitted: July 20, 2001
Decided: September 10, 2001
Upon Consideration of the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 DENIED.
Kenneth M. Haltom, Esq., Dover, Delaware. Attorney for the State. Michael J. Richardson, Pro Se.
ORDER
Upon consideration of defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, it appears:
1. The defendant was originally charged with Possession of Heroin with the Intent to Deliver, 16 Del. C. § 4714(c)(10); Maintaining a Vehicle for Delivery of Heroin, 16 Del. C. § 4755(a)(5); Tampering with Physical Evidence, 11 Del. C. § 1269; Drugs not in Original Container, 16 Del. C. § 4758; Conspiracy in the Second Degree, 11 Del. C. § 512; Possession of a Hypodermic Needle and Syringe, 16 Del. C. § 4757; Possession of Heroin, 16 Del. C. § 4753; and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, 16 Del. C. § 4771. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on June 19, 2000 the defendant pled guilty to the Possession of Heroin and the State filed a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges.
2. The defendant then appealed his conviction and sentence to the State Supreme Court who dismissed it as untimely. On September 27, 2000 the pending Motion for Postconviction Relief was filed. The defendant raised the following grounds for relief: 1) counsel was ineffective; 2) his arrest and detention was illegal; 3) the police committed perjury; 4) the police falsified documents; 5) the search and seizure of evidence was illegal; 6) favorable evidence was suppressed; 7) evidence was "planted"; 8) he was denied due process and his freedom; and 9) the Court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him.
3. The Motion for Postconviction Relief was referred to the Court Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud for proposed findings and recommendation pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
4. The Commissioner found that the defendant failed to raise the majority of his grounds for relief at either his plea, sentencing or on direct appeal and are thus barred by Rule 61(i)(3). The remaining grounds were based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Commissioner determined that counsel's representation was competent and effective, that the defendant failed to substantiate any concrete evidence of prejudice suffered due to counsel's representation and that the defendant entered into the plea completely knowing and voluntarily. A copy of the Commissioner's report is attached hereto and no written objections have been filed with the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:
a. Having conducted a de novo review of the proceedings I adopt the well-reasoned Commissioner's Report and Recommendation;
b. The defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.