IK98-09-0046-R1, IK98-09-0049-R1, IK98-09-0053Superior Court of Delaware, Kent CountySubmitted: July 19, 2001
Decided: July 26, 2001
Upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, the defendant’s objections to the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears that:
ORDER
(1) The defendant, Phillip W. Downs (“Downs”) pled guilty on January 26, 1999 to two counts of Delivery of Cocaine, 16 Del. C. § 4751 and to one count of Possession of Cocaine With Intent to Deliver 16 Del. C. § 4751. Downs had also been charged with three counts of Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances; three counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree; and one count each of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana. If Downs had been convicted of all the charges, he faced a mandatory life sentence due to his prior drug convictions. Upon acceptance of the guilty plea, the Court sentenced Downs consistent with the Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement to thirty years incarceration suspended after serving ten years minimum mandatory, for varying levels of probation. The State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining counts. Downs did not appeal his conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court, instead he filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. He contends that his guilty plea was involuntary, that his counsel was ineffective, and that the Court abused its discretion in accepting the plea.
(2) The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea Maybee Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the motion for postconviction relief should be denied.
(3) Downs has filed written objections to the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation after receiving an extension of time to do so.
(4) Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62, the Court has conducted a careful and de novo review. After doing so, the Court finds no ineffective assistance of counsel and that all of Downs’ claims are either procedurally barred or without merit. Downs contends that the Commissioner incorrectly found that he filled out the guilty plea form. While I find that Downs’ counsel did fill out the guilty plea form as the transcript of the plea indicates, Downs also reviewed the form carefully with his attorney and gave true answers to the questions on it. The record shows that his guilty plea was voluntarily made, that he had the effective assistance of counsel, and that there was no abuse of discretion in the acceptance of the guilty plea.
NOW THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation dated May 2, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(A) The Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court with the modification stated;
(B) The defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.