Case Title: Harrell v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 237, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-08-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BOBBIE L. HARRELL, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 237, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID K1505020549 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 22, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 23, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to 
affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Bobbie Harrell, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s order dated April 9, 2018, accepting a Commissioner’s report 
recommending the denial of Harrell’s first motion for postconviction relief.  The 
State of Delaware filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it 
is clear on the face of Harrell’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree.  Accordingly, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
Harrell was arrested in May 2015 for sexually assaulting a thirteen-
year-old girl.  In March 2017, Harrell pled guilty to one count each of second degree 
 
2 
rape and first degree reckless endangering.  At the guilty plea colloquy, Harrell 
admitted that he was guilty of both crimes and was voluntarily pleading guilty.  The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Harrell to a total period of fifty-five years at 
Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after serving thirty years in prison for a 
period of probation.  Harrell did not file a direct appeal.  Instead, in May 2017, 
Harrell filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to meet with him for over a year and for failing to apprise him 
of the lack of physical evidence against him.  After receiving trial counsel’s affidavit, 
the State’s response, and Harrell’s reply, the Commissioner recommended that 
Harrell’s motion be denied.  The Superior Court accepted that recommendation and 
denied the motion.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
The only issue that Harrell raises in his opening brief on appeal is a 
claim that the Superior Court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before 
ruling on his postconviction motion.  Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(h)(1) 
provides that the Superior Court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing in a 
postconviction proceeding is desirable after considering the motion, the State’s 
response, the movant’s reply, the trial record, and any additional materials.1  We 
review the Superior Court’s decision not to hold a hearing for abuse of discretion.2 
                                                 
1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(h)(1).  See also Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547, 551 (Del. 1998). 
2 Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
(4) 
After careful consideration, we find no abuse of discretion in this case.  
The Superior Court clearly considered Harrell’s motion, his former attorney’s 
affidavit in response, the State’s response, Harrell’s reply, as well as the record of 
the guilty plea proceedings.  There was sufficient evidence in the record for the 
Superior Court to rule on Harrell’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 
without the need for a hearing.  We affirm the Superior Court’s judgment that Harrell 
failed to allege sufficient facts establishing cause or prejudice to substantiate his 
claim that his counsel was ineffective.3  Moreover, the record of the guilty plea 
colloquy belies Harrell’s vague assertion that his attorney intimidated him into 
accepting the State’s plea offer. 
  (5) At the colloquy for his plea hearing, the judge reviewed the evidence 
and the rights that Harrell was waiving by pleading guilty.  Harrell stated, under 
oath, that he was satisfied with his counsel’s performance and that he was pleading 
guilty knowingly and voluntarily because he was, in fact, guilty of the charged 
offenses.  In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Harrell is 
bound by his sworn statements.4  Accordingly, we find no abuse of the Superior 
Court’s discretion in denying Harrell’s motion for postconviction relief without an 
evidentiary hearing.     
                                                 
3 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1980). 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice