Case Title: Samans v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 138, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RYAN SAMANS,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 138, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0707000249 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 14, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  June 1, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of May 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ryan Samans, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s February 22, 2012 order denying his second motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior 
 
2
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening 
brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, on January 9, 2008, Samans 
entered a guilty plea to the charges of Robbery in the First Degree, Assault 
in the Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission 
of a Felony.  He was sentenced on the robbery conviction to 5 years at Level 
V incarceration, to be suspended after 3 years and successful completion of 
the Key Program for 2 years of Level III probation.  He was sentenced on 
the assault conviction to 2 years at Level III, concurrent with his 
probationary sentence for robbery.  On the weapon conviction, Samans 
received 3 years at Level V, with credit for Level V time served.2  Samans 
did not file a direct appeal of his convictions.  This Court affirmed the 
Superior Court’s denial of his first postconviction motion.3 
 
(3) 
 In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his second 
postconviction motion, Samans claims that a) his sentences violate double 
jeopardy; b) the sentencing judge violated his due process rights by not 
assigning a different counsel to his case and by considering the prosecutor’s 
assertion that he was a violent person in his sentencing decision; c) his 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 On October 22, 2008, Samans’ sentencing order was corrected to indicate that the 
minimum mandatory sentence on the weapon conviction was 3, and not 7, years at Level 
V. 
3 Samans v. State, Del. Supr., No. 284, 2009, Steele, C.J. (Aug. 27, 2009). 
 
3
counsel provided ineffective assistance by not adequately investigating his 
case; and d) the Superior Court judge had a conflict of interest. 
 
(4) 
Samans entered a plea of guilty to three of nine criminal 
charges against him on January 9, 2008.  The charge of Assault in the 
Second Degree to which he pleaded guilty was a lesser-included offense of 
Assault in the First Degree.  Samans confirmed when he entered his guilty 
plea that he had committed the offenses, that he understood the 
consequences of pleading guilty and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s 
representation.  We conclude, as did the Superior Court, that Samans’ plea 
was entered knowingly and voluntarily.   
 
(5) 
Samans’ claims are unavailing.  In the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, he is bound by the representations he 
made at the time of his guilty plea.4  Moreover, his guilty plea constitutes a 
waiver of any claim of error or defect occurring prior to the entry of the 
plea.5  Samans’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is likewise 
unavailing.  In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance in the 
context of a guilty plea, Samans must demonstrate a reasonable probability 
that, but for error on the part of his counsel, he would not have pleaded 
                                                 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
5 Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988). 
 
4
guilty but would instead have proceeded to trial.6  Given the number of 
serious charges against him, Samans’ guilty plea provided him with a clear 
benefit.  There is no evidence in the record to support an ineffective 
assistance claim against his counsel.  Nor is there any evidence in the record 
to support a conflict of interest on the part of the Superior Court judge.  
Finally, any claim by Samans that his sentences are illegal is without merit 
in the absence of any evidence that they exceed the statutory maximum.7   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                                 
6 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 60 (Del. 1988). 
7 Ward v. State, 567 A.2d 1296, 1297-98 (Del. 1989).