PATTERSON v. STATE, 840 A.2d 642 (Del. 2004)

ROB L. PATTERSON, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee.

No. 241, 2003.Supreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: October 31, 2003.
Decided: January 12, 2004.

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. IN01-05-1078 and — 1084 Cr. ID 0105000009.

Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS,
Justices.

ORDER
E. NORMAN VEASEY, Chief Justice.

This 12th day of January 2004, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Rob Patterson, was arrested in April 2001 on numerous drug and weapon charges. Patterson was on probation for a previous drug charge at the time of his arrest and was separately charged with violating his probation. At the start of his trial in July 2002, Patterson pleaded guilty to one count each of trafficking and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. He was sentenced immediately to a total period of seven years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving four years for one year of probation. Patterson filed a motion for postconviction relief in November 2002, alleging that the State had breached the plea agreement by failing to incorporate his violation of probation charge and sentence into the plea agreement. The Superior Court summarily denied Patterson’s motion. This appeal ensued.

(2) The record in this case reflects that, following his April 2001 arrest, Patterson filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by the police. The Superior Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress on September 19, 2001. During the same hearing, following the Superior Court’s denial of Patterson’s suppression motion, the Superior Court found Patterson in violation of his previously imposed probation and immediately sentenced him on the VOP charge to two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving 18 months for six months in a work release program. During the course of that hearing, the prosecutor noted on the record that the State previously had offered Patterson a deal for four years incarceration if Patterson pled guilty to violating probation, trafficking, and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited. The prosecutor stated that the offer had been withdrawn due to Patterson’s lack of acceptance. Patterson did not contradict the prosecutor, and the Superior Court set the matter for trial on the new charges.

(3) On July 9, 2002, the day his trial was scheduled to start, Patterson entered a guilty plea. During the plea colloquy, Patterson acknowledged that he was pleading guilty to one count each of trafficking and possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, which, together, carried a minimum mandatory sentence of four years imprisonment. There was no assertion by any party that the VOP sentence, which the Superior Court had imposed ten months earlier, was somehow to be included in the four-year minimum mandatory sentence. In fact, Patterson and his counsel requested the Superior Court to impose minimum probation to follow his four-year minimum mandatory prison sentence because of the six months probation Patterson already was required to serve following his eighteen-month prison sentence for the VOP. In light of this record, we find no factual basis for Patterson’s contention that the State breached its plea agreement. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s order denying Patterson’s postconviction motion must be affirmed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.