Case Title: Wright v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 482, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FLOYD WRIGHT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 482, 2000 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN99-02-0351 R1 
§                   IN99-02-0352 R1 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 1, 2001 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   February 28, 2001 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of February 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Floyd Wright, filed this appeal from 
an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In this appeal, Wright claims that: 1) his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance; 2) the Superior Court abused its discretion in refusing 
to grant a continuance of his trial so he could obtain substitute counsel; and 
3) his guilty plea was involuntary. 
 
2 
 
(3) 
Wright was scheduled for trial in the Superior Court on May 
25, 1999 on robbery and assault charges.  On that same date, after his 
request for a continuance of the trial was denied, Wright entered a guilty 
plea to first degree robbery and second degree assault.1  Wright was 
sentenced to 10 years incarceration at Level V on the robbery conviction and 
8 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for decreasing 
levels of probation, on the assault conviction.  
 
(4) 
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, Wright must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s 
unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have 
insisted on proceeding to trial.2  Wright has provided no support for his 
contention that unprofessional errors on the part of his counsel were 
prejudicial to him.  In fact, during his plea colloquy he specifically 
represented that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation during the 
plea phase.  Because there is no support for Wright’s claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel, the Superior Court’s summary denial of the claim was 
warranted. 
                                                          
 
1Pursuant to Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 291 A.2d 279, 281 (1972) (permitting the Superior Court to 
accept a plea of guilty without the defendant’s admission to participation in the acts constituting the crime). 
 
3 
 
(5) 
Wright’s claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion in 
refusing to continue his trial so he could obtain substitute counsel is without 
merit.  Whether to grant a continuance on the day of trial lies within the 
sound discretion of the Superior Court.3  Unless based on clearly 
unreasonable or capricious grounds, a discretionary ruling on such a motion 
will not be disturbed by this Court.4  Our review of the record in this case 
reflects no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court.  
 
(6) 
Wright’s third claim is that the Superior Court’s refusal to 
continue his trial rendered his guilty plea involuntary.  This claim, too, is 
without merit.  Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Wright 
is bound by the representations he made during his plea colloquy.5  During 
the colloquy, the Superior Court exhaustively questioned Wright concerning 
his decision to plead guilty and specifically addressed the issue of attempting 
to withdraw the plea at a later time.  It is clear from the colloquy between the 
Superior Court and Wright that Wright’s guilty plea was knowingly and 
voluntarily entered.   
                                                                                                                                                                             
2Albury v. State, Del. Supr., 551 A.2d 53, 58 (1988) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 
(1984)). 
3Secrest v. State, Del. Supr., 679 A.2d 58, 64 (1996) (citing Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 521 A.2d 1069, 
1088 (1987)). 
4Hicks v. State, Del. Supr., 434 A.2d 377, 381 (1981) (citing Raymond Heartless, Inc. v. State, Del. Supr., 
401 A.2d 921, 923 (1979)). 
5Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629, 632 (1997). 
 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice