Opinion
I.D No. 0008015334
May 24, 2001
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief. Summarily Dismissed.
ORDER
This 24th day of May, 2001, upon review of the record in this case and the papers filed by the Defendant, it appears that:
(1) On October 23, 2000, Defendant, Von A. Smith pleaded guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine. On the same date, the Court sentenced Smith to eight years Level 5 incarceration, suspended after a minimum mandatory three years for five years home confinement, suspended after six months for probation.
(2) Smith has now filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. This is Smith's first Motion for Postconviction Relief and the Court finds that none of the procedural bars listed in Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) are applicable. Therefore, the Court may consider the merits of Smith's motion.
(5) Smith raises two grounds for relief in support of his motion, both involving ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Smith claims that his defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his automobile and because he failed to file a request for discovery materials.
The Court finds that Smith's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. A criminal defendant who raises an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel must show that an attorney's conduct did not meet reasonable professional standards so that such conduct was prejudicial to the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). A defendant must be able to show that "[t]here is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different." Id. at 669.
As noted above, Smith pleaded guilty to Trafficking in Cocaine. Smith does not claim in his motion that he did not enter into the plea knowingly or voluntarily. As a result of pleading guilty, Smith gave up his trial rights, including the right to present evidence in his defense and to hear and question witnesses against him. Smith indicated on his guilty plea form that he understood, by pleading guilty, that he gave up these rights. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, a defendant is bound by his signed statement on a guilty plea form. Fullman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 268, 1988, Christie, C.J. (Feb. 22, 1989)(ORDER). Smith has presented no such evidence. As a result, the Court finds that Smith has failed to show that his counsel was ineffective in his defense or that he was prejudiced by the alleged actions of his counsel.
Therefore, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Smith is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.