Opinion
I.D. No. 0105012352
Submitted: April 24, 2002
Decided: May 2, 2002
ORDER
Upon Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief.
Summarily Dismissed.
This 2nd day of May, 2002, upon consideration of the defendant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) On April 9, 2002, Defendant, Willie Thomas, pleaded guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana. On the same date, the Court sentenced Defendant to serve six months Level 4 home confinement followed by probation. Defendant's attorney subsequently notified the Court that Defendant would not be allowed to live at his residence on home confinement because his children lived there. The Court subsequently modified Defendant's sentence to specify that the Level 4 portion of his sentence be served at work release.
(2) Defendant has now filed a Motion for Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Defendant lists as grounds for relief that, "information that would have affected my decision was not presented to me" and that "the search and seizure of my home was tainted."
(3) Under established procedure, the Court must first determine whether Defendant has met the procedural requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) before it may consider the merits of the postconviction relief claims. This is Defendant's first motion for postconviction relief and the Court determines that none of the procedural bars listed in Rule 61(i) are applicable. Therefore, the Court may consider the merits of Defendant's motion.
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del.Supr. 1990).
(4) In support of his first ground for relief, Defendant claims that, had he known before accepting the guilty plea that he would not be able to live in his home with his children during home confinement, he would not have accepted the plea. When the Court accepts a guilty plea, it must be satisfied that the defendant has entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. To ensure that the plea is knowing and voluntary, the Court must ascertain that the defendant understands "the direct consequences of pleading guilty."
Barkley v. State, 724 A.2d 558, 559 (Del.Supr. 1999).
Id. (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 (1970)).
(5) Conversely, the Court is not required to inform the defendant of all possible collateral consequences of his guilty plea. A collateral consequence is defined as "one that is not related to the length or nature of the sentence imposed on the basis of the plea." The Court finds that the possibility that Defendant would not be able to use his residence for purposes of home confinement was a collateral consequence of his guilty plea. As such, the fact that Defendant was not informed of that possibility did not affect the knowingness or voluntariness of his guilty plea.
Id. (quoting United States v. Romero-Vilca, 850 F.2d 177, 179 (3rd Cir. 1988)).
(6) Defendant also asserts in support of the same ground for relief that, although he was arrested in June 2001, he did not receive a plea offer until April 5, 2002, four days prior to his scheduled trial date. The Court cannot find that the date upon which Defendant received his guilty plea offer in any way affected whether he knowingly and voluntarily entered into his guilty plea. As a result, the Court finds that Defendant's initial ground for relief, "information that would have affected my decision was not presented to me," clearly is without merit.
(7) Defendant's second ground for relief is that, "the search and seizure of my home was tainted." By pleading guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver, Defendant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's final ground for relief is with out merit.
State v. Jones, 1990 WL 18267 (Del.Supr.).
In conclusion, because the Court finds that it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby SUMMARILY DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.