Case Title: Bradley v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 589, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BARRY L. BRADLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 589, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0312019460 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    June 5, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 5th day of June 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Barry L. Bradley, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s October 17, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
(2) 
On March 9, 2005, Bradley pleaded guilty to Robbery in the 
First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a 
Felony, and Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person Prohibited.  He 
was sentenced to a total of 16 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
 
2
suspended after 11 years for 5 years at Level III.1  On March 31, 2005, the 
Superior Court issued a corrected sentencing order that gave Bradley credit 
for 315 days of Level V time.  Bradley did not file a direct appeal from his 
convictions and sentences.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Bradley claims that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by misleading him as to the amount of prison time he 
would receive, thereby coercing him to plead guilty.  He requests an 
evidentiary hearing in order to substantiate this claim.   
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that, 
but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded 
guilty, but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.2  The defendant must 
make concrete allegations of actual prejudice, and substantiate them, or risk 
summary dismissal.3      
 
(5) 
  The transcript of Bradley’s guilty plea colloquy fatally 
undermines his claim of ineffective assistance and a coerced guilty plea.  
When asked by the judge if he had committed the offenses to which he was 
pleading guilty, he said yes.  When asked if he was satisfied with his 
                                                 
1 At the time Bradley entered his plea, he already had pleaded guilty to federal robbery 
and weapon charges.  The federal court ordered that his federal sentence would run 
concurrently with the sentence imposed on his state convictions. 
2 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 
3 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
 
3
counsel’s representation, he said yes.  When asked if he was being coerced 
to enter the plea, he said no.  When asked if anyone had promised him what 
his sentence would be, he said no.  Finally, when asked if there were any 
reason why his guilty plea should not be accepted, he said no.  In the 
absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Bradley is bound 
by the representations he made at his plea colloquy.4  We, therefore, 
conclude that Bradley’s claims are without merit.        
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice    
 
 
 
                                                 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).