Summary
denying UAD violation claim where defendant pled guilty before expiration of UAD § 2543's 120-day trial deadline
Summary of this case from State v. MudeOpinion
Cr.A. No. 05-05-0828 — Def. ID No. 0403010937 Letter Opinion.
Date Submitted: September 7, 2010.
November 29, 2010.
Willie R. Bryant, Cumberland, MD.
Dear Mr. Bryant:
This is my decision on your Motion for Postconviction Relief. You were charged with one count each of Robbery in the First Degree and Kidnaping in the First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and one count of conspiracy in the Second Degree. The charges arose out of your robbery and kidnaping of an employee at the Family Dollar Store in Delmar, Delaware. You pled guilty to one count each of Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony before the Honorable T. Henley Graves. He ordered a presentence investigation. I sentenced you to 50 years at Supervision Level V. You then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed your convictions. You then filed a pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief. You allege that (1) your sentence was unconstitutional, (2) your attorney was ineffective, and (3) your incarceration violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. This is your first Motion for Postconviction Relief and it was filed in a timely manner.
901 A.2d 119, 2006 WL 1640177 (Del. June 12, 2006)(TABLE).
You were represented by Michael R. Abram, Esquire. The State was represented by Deputy Attorney General Peggy J. Marshall, Esquire. Abram and Marshall submitted affidavits in response to your allegations. You asked me to issue a "Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum" to obtain the testimony of State of Maryland inmates Donald M. Williams and Mallory A. Peterson, stating that they were witnesses to your plea negotiations in this case. However, you have not identified the information that they would allegedly offer. Given the nature of your allegations and the absence of any specific allegations about what Williams and Peterson would offer, I have concluded that a hearing is not necessary.
I. Unconstitutional Sentence
You allege that your sentence is unconstitutional because (1) the Court did not state the context in which your sentence was supposed to run, and (2) the sentence should have merged under the "required evidence test." The nature and duration of your sentence was made clear to you on the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and during the plea colloquy. The Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form listed the statutory penalties for Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony as ranging from a minimum of five years to a maximum of 25 years. It also indicated that your minimum mandatory penalty was 10 years and that your total maximum penalty was 50 years. Judge Graves and Abram also went over this with you during your plea colloquy. The following is an excerpt of the applicable portions of it:
Mr. Abram: Good morning, Your Honor. I have Willie Bryant. Mr. Bryant has agreed to take a plea to robbery in the first degree and to possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Given certain enhancements, Mr. Bryant is facing a minimum mandatory of five years on each. I have gone over the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form with Mr. Bryant and have explained to him the valuable trial rights that he's giving up here today. I've explained to him that you are free to sentence him anywhere from 10 to 50 years. There is no immediate sentencing recommendation for Your Honor. Mr. Bryant understands that.
The Court: Mr. Bryant, you are charged with two serious offenses: One robbery in the first degree, punishable by up to 25 years in jail; the other is the weapons charge, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, punishable by up to 25 years in jail. There is a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years. The sentence has to begin with the ten years and can go up to 50 years.
Tr. at 2-3 (Aug. 3, 2005).
The nature and duration of your potential sentence was more than adequately explained to you. Furthermore, 11 Del.C. 3901(d) states that "[n]o sentence of confinement of any criminal defendant by any court of this State shall be made to run concurrently with any other sentence of confinement imposed on such criminal defendant." I do not know what you are referring to when you state your sentences must merge under the "required evidence test." However, it is clear that Delaware law prohibits the merging of sentences. Your allegations regarding your sentencing are without merit.
See also 11 Del.C. § 1447(A)(e).
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
a. Ten-year sentence
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
State v. Thompson, 2003 WL 21244679 (Del. Super. April 15, 2003), citing Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
State v. Coleman, 2003 WL 22092724 (Del. Super. Feb. 19, 2003).
Coleman, 2003 WL 22092724, at *2, quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
Coleman, 2003 WL 22092724, at *1, citing State v. Johnson, 1999 WL 743612, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 12, 1999).
The Court: Mr. Bryant, you are charged with two serious offenses: One robbery in the first degree, punishable by up to 25 years in jail; the other is the weapons charge, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony punishable by up to 25 years in jail. There is a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years. The sentence has to begin with the ten years and can go up to 50 years.
The Court: This is Mr. Bryant saying, hey, I did this, I'm responsible, I know Im hoping I'm not going to get hit too hard?
The Defendant: Yes, Sir.
The Court: But you understand it is going to be up to the judge to decide how hard the hit is?
The Defendant: Yes, Sir.
The Court: Has anybody promised you what the sentence would be?
The Defendant: No, Sir.
This allegation is without merit.
Tr. at 9 (Aug. 3, 2005).
b. Appeal
III. Interstate Agreement on Detainers
Del.C.2542Del.C.2542Del.C.2543
901 A.2d 119, 2006 WL 1640177 (Del. June 12, 2006)(TABLE).
CONCLUSION
Willie R. Bryant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.