From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Yarnall

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Jun 14, 2007
ID No. 0505008426 (R-1) (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 14, 2007)

Opinion

ID No. 0505008426 (R-1).

June 14, 2007.

N440 — State Mail, David S. Yarnall, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, DE.


Dear Mr. Yarnall:

This is the Court's decision denying your Motion for Postconviction Relief. The delay in responding to you is that the Court ordered a transcript of your guilty plea prior to considering your Motion. I have had the opportunity to review the transcript of your guilty plea, the transcript of the violation of probation sentence on which you are presently incarcerated, and your Motion for Postconviction Relief.

In your Motion for Postconviction Relief, Ground One, you make the following allegation:

"Legal papers snatched out of my hands entering Judge Graves' Courtroom August 22, 2006"

You do not in any way inform the Court as to how or why the removal of "legal papers" from you by someone impacted on your decision to acknowledge that you were in violation of probation on August 22, 2006. In other words, you have made no relevant argument as to how your allegation that legal papers were removed from you in any way impacted on your being found in violation of probation based upon your admissions. Your allegations have nothing to do with your voluntary decision to enter a guilty plea on June 21, 2006, nor do they have anything to do with the violation of probation sentencing added on August 22, 2006 and this claim is dismissed.

In Ground Two, you allege that Judge Stokes and I were somehow misled by not being given full information concerning your behavior on the night the charges arose. You were obviously upset that you had to be "controlled with a taser gun" and you have filed a civil lawsuit in the Federal District Court. There is nothing in your general complaints concerning your allegations as to the police conduct on the night of your arrest that gives rise t o an y claim t hat you d id n ot k now ingl y, voluntarily and intelligently enter into a guilty plea by way of a Robinson plea before Judge Stokes on June 21, 2006. This claim is procedurally barred because you knew this information at the time you entered the plea. You could have raised it if it was getting in the way of your guilty plea with Superior Court, or you could have appealed it to the Supreme Court. You chose to do neither, and therefore it is barred under Rule 61(i)(3) as you have shown neither cause nor prejudice by raising this matter in a timely manner.

I also note that this claim has no merit in that your complaints concerning police conduct have nothing to do with your acknowledgment that the State has had sufficient proof for you to be found guilty of aggravating menacing, menacing, and resisting arrest. A review of the colloquy between you and Judge Stokes on June 21, 2006 indicates that you entered the plea fully aware of your rights and fully aware of the consequences. You received a suspended sentence. You were not sentenced to jail on these charges until two months later when you immediately violated your probation. The violation of probation was based upon your admissions.

Thus, as to the merits, there is nothing in Ground Two that would have changed the Court's decision to accept your guilty plea. Ground Two is dismissed.

In Ground Three, you allege perjury by the prosecutor. You allege that the prosecutor lied and exa ggerated to Jud ge St okes about your arre st and your violent crimin al h ist ory.

At your sentencing you had the opportunity to speak, and you also had the opportunity to appeal the sentence entered by Judge Stokes. Your present complaint is too little, too late. It is procedurally dismissed pursuant to Superior Court Rule 61(i)(3) as you have shown no cause for not presenting this matter to the Court earlier, nor appealing, nor have you shown any prejudice.

Alternatively, it has nothing to do with why you are incarcerated right now. You have entered a guilty plea to the charges and received probation. Subsequently, you committed further criminal acts by continuing to use drugs. Per the transcript and the comments of your attorney, it is obvious that the use of drugs is what got you in trouble in the first place. There is a complete disconnect as to your allegations concerning Ms. Ryan, your decision to enter a guilty plea by way of a Robinson plea, and your subsequent conduct which caused your incarceration. This claim is dismissed.

For the above reasons, Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

State v. Yarnall

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Jun 14, 2007
ID No. 0505008426 (R-1) (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 14, 2007)
Case details for

State v. Yarnall

Case Details

Full title:State of Delaware v. David S. Yarnall Defendant

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County

Date published: Jun 14, 2007

Citations

ID No. 0505008426 (R-1) (Del. Super. Ct. Jun. 14, 2007)