Case Title: Roberts v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 346, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHERMAN ROBERTS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 346, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0503018656 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 26, 2007 
Decided: February 28, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of February 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Sherman Roberts, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s May 30, 2006 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
On October 6, 2005, Roberts pleaded guilty to Trafficking in 
Cocaine and Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances.  
He was sentenced to a total of 6 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 2 years for 30 months at Level III probation.  At the time of 
 
2
his guilty plea, Roberts was serving a 3-year Level V sentence for a 
violation of probation (“VOP”) in connection with an earlier conviction of 
Trafficking in Cocaine.     
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Roberts claims that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise him concerning the 
consequences of his guilty plea.  Specifically, he argues that, if he had 
understood that his new Level V sentence for trafficking in cocaine would 
not run concurrently with the Level V VOP sentence for trafficking in 
cocaine he already was serving, he would not have entered a guilty plea to 
that charge, but would have proceeded to trial.     
 
(4) 
 In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel in connection with a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that, 
but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded 
guilty, but instead would have insisted on proceeding to trial.1  The 
defendant must make concrete allegations of actual prejudice, and 
substantiate them, or risk summary dismissal.2 
 
(5) 
The record reflects that Roberts entered his guilty plea on 
October 6, 2005.  In connection with his plea, Roberts executed a Truth-in-
Sentencing Guilty Plea Form in which he confirmed that he had not been 
                                                 
1 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
 
3
promised anything in exchange for his guilty plea and that no one had 
promised him what his sentence would be.  The transcript of Roberts’ plea 
colloquy reflects that he was sentenced immediately after pleading guilty.  
During the plea colloquy, Roberts confirmed that no one had promised him 
what his sentence would be.  Prior to being sentenced, Roberts specifically 
asked the Superior Court judge if he could serve his new Level V sentence 
for trafficking in cocaine concurrently with the Level V VOP sentence for 
trafficking in cocaine he already was serving.  The judge told Roberts that, 
because the sentences were both minimum mandatory sentences, they could 
not be served concurrently.  Roberts acknowledged that he understood.   
 
(6) 
Sometime after Roberts entered his guilty plea, his attorney 
wrote him a letter confirming his sentences.3  In the letter, Roberts’ counsel 
stated, “At your trial date, you entered a plea of guilty to trafficking and 
maintaining a vehicle. . . . The trafficking sentence is concurrent to the three 
year sentence that you are doing right now.”  While Roberts’ counsel’s 
statement clearly was in error, the record reflects that the letter was written 
subsequent to the entry of Roberts’ guilty plea.4  Roberts, therefore, could 
not have relied upon that statement in connection with his guilty plea, as he 
                                                 
3 In his response to Roberts’ postconviction motion in the Superior Court, Roberts’ 
attorney stated that this was his normal practice. 
4 While the letter was dated September 14, 2005, its content clearly reflects that it was 
written subsequent to October 6, 2005, the date on which Roberts’ guilty plea was 
entered.  
 
4
asserts.  As such, Roberts has failed to demonstrate that, but for his 
counsel’s professional errors, he would not have pleaded guilty, but would 
have insisted on proceeding to trial.  His claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel is, therefore, without merit.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice