Opinion
ID# 0009016131
Date Submitted: November 5, 2001
Date Decided: February 22, 2002
Upon Defendant's motion for appointment of counsel.
DENIED
ORDER
On this 22nd day of February 2002, upon consideration of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel filed by the Defendant and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On March 26, 2001, Defendant entered a guilty plea to two counts of Burglary Second Degree (IN 00-10-0552 and IN 00-10-0569). Pursuant to his plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on all remaining charges of that indictment. Defendant admitted that he was an habitual offender pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and agreed to sixteen (16) years Level V incarceration.
(2) On November 5, 2001, Defendant filed this motion asking for appointment of counsel pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(1) to assist him in presenting his first postconviction relief motion. Defendant contends that his court appointed counsel denied him his right to appeal by not advising him of such a right.
(3) Rule 61(e)(1) states "[t]he court will appoint counsel for an indigent movant only in the exercise of discretion and for good cause shown, but not otherwise." It is not an abuse of discretion to decline to appoint counsel for a postconviction relief motion when the claims are without merit. Carr v. State, No. 360, 1986, Horsey, J. (Jan. 9, 1987) (ORDER).
(4) Defendant pled guilty to these charges, in doing so he signified that he understood the constitutional rights he was relinquishing by his plea. When Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into his plea, he waived his right to appeal. A defendant is bound by the statements he made on the signed Plea Form and during the in court colloquy unless he proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the Court finds that these claims are meritless and no counsel should be appointed.
Hickman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 298, 1994, Veasey, C.J. (Oct. 11, 1994) (ORDER) at 3-4.
Hickman, at 3-4; Smith v. State, Del. Supr., No. 465, 1989, Walsh, J. (Jan. 4, 1990) (ORDER).
For the foregoing reasons Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.