Case Title: Elliot v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 202, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDRE W. ELLIOTT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 202, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN00-09-1466 R1 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 30, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   August 11, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of August 2003, 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, Andre W. Elliott, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s March 18, 2003 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The 
plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the judgment 
 
2
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Elliott’s 
opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In March 2001, Elliott pleaded guilty to Rape in the Second 
Degree (Victim Less than 12).  In May 2001, Elliott, who was represented 
by counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  Following an 
evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied Elliott’s motion.  In its order, 
the Superior Court found that: Elliott was aware of the potential sentence in 
connection with his guilty plea; there was no evidence that Elliott’s attorney 
coerced him into pleading guilty; there was no evidence supporting Elliott’s 
claim that he is innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty; and there 
was no evidence supporting Elliott’s claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with his guilty plea. 
 
(3) 
In December 2001, Elliott was sentenced to fifteen years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after ten years to decreasing levels 
of probation.2  Elliott did not file a direct appeal from his conviction or 
sentence. 
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Elliott claims that: a) the attorney who 
represented him at his guilty plea hearing provided ineffective assistance by 
                                                                 
1SUPR. CT. R. 25(a). 
2The order was corrected in September 2002 to add court costs to the financial summary. 
 
3
failing to investigate the facts, move to suppress his statement to the police, 
arrange for testing by a psychiatrist, assure that he was not subjected to 
double jeopardy, and file a direct appeal; b) the attorney who represented 
him in postconviction proceedings provided ineffective assistance by not 
preparing a defense; and c) the Superior Court abused its discretion by not 
permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea and by denying his motion for 
postconviction relief. 
 
(5) 
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel, Elliott must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s 
unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of 
the proceedings would have been different. 3  Although not insurmountable, 
the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong 
presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable.”4 
 
(6) 
We have reviewed Elliott’s claims of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with the entry of his guilty plea and find them to be 
barred as formerly adjudicated.5  Moreover, we do not find that 
                                                                 
3Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
4Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
5SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(i) (4). 
 
4
reconsideration of these claims is warranted in the interest of justice,6 since 
Elliott has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any alleged error 
on the part of his counsel.  Elliott has also failed to demonstrate prejudice as 
the result of any alleged error on the part of the attorney who represented 
him in postconviction proceedings.  Finally, Elliott’s claim that the Superior 
Court abused its discretion by not permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea 
and by denying his motion for postconviction relief is unsupported by the 
record.  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Elliott’s 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, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                                 
6Id.