Opinion
No. 435, 2002
Submitted: January 10, 2003
Decided: February 28, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr.A. No. S00-05-0561 Cr. ID 0005013191
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Ernest Conquest, pled guilty in July 2000 to one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana. The Superior Court sentenced Conquest to five years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after serving three years minimum mandatory and completion of the Key Program for decreasing levels of supervision. Conquest did not appeal to this Court. In February 2002, Conquest, represented by different counsel, filed his first petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently due to his trial counsel's ineffective assistance. The Superior Court denied Conquest's motion after holding a hearing. This appeal ensued.
See DEL. SUPER.CT.CRIM.R. 61.
(2) In his postconviction motion, Conquest asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: (i) counsel failed to explain to Conquest or pursue on his behalf an appropriate suppression motion; (ii) counsel failed to conduct proper discovery and investigate Conquest's case; and (iii) counsel improperly advised Conquest to plead guilty to possession with intent to deliver when the evidence only supported a charge of simple possession.
(3) The Superior Court directed Conquest's trial counsel to respond to Conquest's allegations. Thereafter, the Superior Court held a hearing on the motion at which both Conquest and his former counsel testified. After the hearing, the Superior Court issued a ruling from the bench denying Conquest's motion. After reviewing Conquest's contentions and resolving questions of credibility, the Superior Court held that Conquest had failed to sustain his burden of proving that his trial counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that counsel's errors had prejudiced Conquest in his decision to plead guilty. The Superior Court concluded that Conquest had entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
See MacDonald v. State, 778 A.2d 1064, 1074-75 (Del. 2001) (setting forth the two-prong test for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of a guilty plea).
(4) Having carefully considered the parties' respective briefs, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court's well-reasoned decision issued from the bench on July 3, 2002. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Conquest had failed to sustain his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court's denial of Conquest's motion for postconviction relief.
See Blackwell v. State, 736 A.2d 971, 972 (Del. 1999) (appeal from Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.