Case Title: Cornish v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 79, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-08-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
OTIS CORNISH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 79, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 9810007587 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 21, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 9, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 
record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In June 1999, the appellant Otis Cornish, after three days of trial but 
before closing arguments, pleaded guilty to one count of first degree robbery, two 
counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and one count 
of attempted first degree assault (as a lesser included offense to attempted murder).  
The Superior Court sentenced Cornish in accordance with his plea agreement to 
twenty years at Level V incarceration followed by eleven years of probation.  In 
July 2001, Cornish filed his first petition for postconviction relief, asserting various 
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.  After receiving responses from 
 
2
trial counsel and the State, the Superior Court, without holding a hearing, 
summarily denied Cornish’s petition on its merits.  This appeal ensued. 
(2) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective briefs, we find it 
manifest that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed on the basis of its 
well-reasoned decision dated January 17, 2002.  The Superior Court’s finding that 
Cornish entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily is supported by clear and 
convincing evidence in the record.  Moreover, we find no error in the Superior 
Court’s conclusion that Cornish’s allegations of ineffective assistance were vague 
and unsupported by the record. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not err in 
summarily disposing of Cornish’s petition without holding a hearing.1  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_Myron T. Steele____________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
 
1 See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 11 (Del. 1996).