Case Title: Webb v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 589, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM J.WEBB, JR.,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 589, 2000
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. 99-08-0767
§                   99-08-0768
§                   99-08-2482
§              VN97-03-0286-01
Submitted: October 26, 2001
  Decided:   December 7, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, William J. Webb, filed this appeal from
the November 27, 2000 order of the Superior Court denying his second
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.
We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.  Because of an
error in Webb’s sentence for burglary, however, we REMAND to the
Superior Court for the limited purpose of correcting Webb’s sentencing order.
1Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2), (4) and (5).
2Laudably, the State points out that Webb should not have been sentenced to more
than 10 years incarceration at Level V on the burglary conviction.  11 Del. C. §§ 826,
4205(b) (3).
-2-
(2)
In this appeal, Webb claims that the Superior Court abused its
discretion by dismissing his second motion for postconviction relief as
procedurally barred.  Specifically, Webb claims that, because the Superior
Court incorrectly stated that he had not asserted a claim of coercion in his first
motion for postconviction relief and because the prosecutor’s breach of the
plea agreement violated his constitutional rights, the procedural bars should
not apply.1  Webb also claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for transcripts of the plea colloquy and sentencing
hearings. 
(3)
In March 2000, Webb pleaded guilty to Burglary in the First
Degree, Assault in the First Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child.
He also admitted to violating the terms of a previously imposed period of
probation.  On the burglary conviction, Webb was sentenced to 12 years
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels
of probation.2  On the assault conviction, he was sentenced to 30 months
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 24 months for decreasing
3Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991).
4Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2) and (4).
-3-
levels of probation.  On the endangering conviction, he was sentenced to 12
months incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for probation.  On the
violation of probation, Webb was sentenced to 3 years incarceration at Level
V.  Webb did not file a direct appeal of his convictions or sentences.  He did,
however, file two postconviction motions, the second of which he now appeals
to this Court.  
(4)
When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, a court must first
determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule
before addressing any substantive issues.3  Contrary to Webb’s allegation, the
Superior Court did not dismiss his motion on the ground that he had failed to
assert a claim of coercion in his previous motion.  Rather, the Superior Court
correctly held that, to the extent Webb had asserted claims in his previous
motion for postconviction relief that were re-asserted in his present motion and
to the extent Webb asserted claims in his present motion that had not been
asserted previously, all such claims were procedurally barred.4   
(5)
Webb next claims that the prosecutor breached the plea
agreement by recommending 28, rather than 20, years of Level V
5The plea agreement contains the following language: “State agrees not to
recommend more than 20 years L[evel] V.”
6Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2), (4) and (5).
7Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d) (3).
-4-
imprisonment at the sentencing hearing.5  Webb alleges that this breach
constituted a violation of his constitutional rights and rendered the procedural
bars inapplicable.  Webb is incorrect that the prosecutor’s alleged breach of
the plea agreement excuses his procedural default.6  Even if the prosecutor did
recommend a sentence in excess of what was agreed to, there was no
prejudice to Webb since the total amount of the Level V sentence imposed by
the Superior Court was less than 20 years.        
(6)
Webb’s final claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion
by denying his request for transcripts is also unavailing.  It was within the
discretion of the Superior Court to determine whether transcripts were needed
in order to rule on Webb’s motion for postconviction relief.7  There was no
error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in determining
that it was able to rule on the motion without the transcripts.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  This matter is REMANDED to the Superior
-5-
Court for correction of Webb’s sentence for Burglary in the First Degree from
12 years incarceration at Level V to 10 years incarceration at Level V.
Jurisdiction is not retained.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice