Opinion
No. 591, 2002
Submitted: January 7, 2003
Decided: February 28, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County Cr. ID 0001003156
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the State's motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Recardo Weatherspoon, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court's judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Weatherspoon's opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The record reflects that Weatherspoon pled guilty in June 2000 to one count of delivery of cocaine and two counts of conspiracy. The Superior Court sentenced Weatherspoon as an habitual offender, in accordance with his plea agreement, to a total period of seventeen years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving thirteen years for four years of probation. Weatherspoon did not appeal to this Court. In August 2002, Weatherspoon filed his first petition for postconviction relief.
Weatherspoon argued: (i) his guilty plea was not voluntary due to his counsel's ineffective assistance; (ii) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and (iii) the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Weatherspoon's motion to disqualify his trial counsel and appoint substitute counsel below.
The Superior Court addressed each of these claims and denied Weatherspoon's petition on its merits.
(3) The gist of Weatherspoon's complaints is that he was innocent of the charges against him, that the police and prosecutor used false evidence to indict him, and that his trial counsel did not properly investigate the case and instead coerced Weatherspoon into pleading guilty. After reviewing Weatherspoon's petition, the Superior Court, without holding a hearing, concluded that Weatherspoon's claims of ineffective assistance were vague and unsubstantiated and that his claim concerning false evidence was not supported by the record. Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that Weatherspoon had failed to sustain his burden of proving that his trial counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that counsel's alleged errors had prejudiced Weatherspoon's decision to plead guilty. The Superior Court held that Weatherspoon had entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
(4) Having carefully considered the parties' respective positions, 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 dated October 1, 2002. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Weatherspoon 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 Weatherspoon's motion for postconviction relief without holding a hearing.
See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 11 (Del. 1996).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.