Case Title: Brown v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 378, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-11-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT D. BROWN, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 378, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0605017922 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 10, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 27, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Robert Brown, has filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief.  The State of 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that 
it is manifest on the face of Brown’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm.  
(2) 
The record reflects that Brown pled guilty in September 2006 to 
one count of delivery of cocaine.  In exchange for his plea agreement, the 
 
2
State dismissed two other charges included in the same indictment and also 
dismissed three additional charges filed under a separate indictment.  The 
plea agreement provided that the State would request a presentence 
investigation and would file a motion requesting habitual offender 
sentencing.  The habitual offender motion was filed prior to sentencing. On 
December 18, 2006, the Court granted the State’s habitual offender motion 
and sentenced Brown to five years at Level V incarceration to be followed 
by six months probation.  
Brown did not appeal.  Instead, in February 2007, 
he filed a motion for postconviction relief arguing that his plea agreement 
had not been fulfilled and that his sentence exceeded the sentencing 
guidelines.  The Superior Court denied his motion.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
After careful consideration of appellant’s opening brief and the 
State’s motion to affirm, we find it manifest that the judgment below should 
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision 
dated July 11, 2007. The Superior Court did not err in holding, as a matter of 
law, that appellant’s sentence was within the statutorily-mandated limits and 
thus provided no basis for postconviction relief.1  Moreover, the Superior 
Court’s conclusion that the State had fulfilled its part of the plea agreement 
is supported by the record.  It is clear that the State dismissed the remaining 
                                                 
1 See Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992). 
 
3
charges against Brown in exchange for his guilty plea.  The plea agreement 
clearly provided Brown with a substantial benefit.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice