Case Title: McMillan v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 297, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BENJAMIN McMILLAN, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 297, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0608002639 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 22, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 7, 2010  
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of September 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court 
record, it appear to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Benjamin McMillan, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 5, 2010 summary dismissal of his first motion for 
postconviction relief.  The appellee, State of Delaware, has filed a motion to 
affirm the Superior Court judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the 
 
2
face of McMillan’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit.1  We agree 
and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In September 2006, McMillan was indicted for seven offenses.2  
On March 21, 2007, McMillan pled guilty to two of those offenses, namely 
Trafficking in Cocaine and Tampering with Physical Evidence.  In his 
written plea agreement with the State, McMillan stipulated that he was 
eligible for habitual criminal sentencing, and he agreed to immediate 
sentencing.  On March 21, 2007, McMillan was declared a habitual criminal 
and was sentenced to eighteen years at Level V for the trafficking conviction 
and to an additional two years at Level V suspended for one year at Level IV 
for the tampering conviction. 
 
(3) 
On April 12, 2010, McMillan filed a motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  As grounds for relief, 
McMillan alleged that his guilty plea was coerced, that his habitual offender 
sentence was invalid, and that his counsel was ineffective. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 The charged offenses were Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Deliver 
Cocaine, Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, Tampering with 
Physical Evidence, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Resisting Arrest and Possession of 
Marijuana.  
 
3
 
(4) 
By order May 5, 2010, the Superior Court summarily dismissed 
McMillan’s postconviction motion as “procedurally barred by Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61(i)(1), (2), (3), and (4).”  This appeal followed. 
 
(5) 
It appears to the Court that McMillan’s claims of a coerced 
guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel are refuted by the record.3  
There is no evidence in the record suggesting that McMillan’s counsel’s 
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that, but 
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, McMillan would not have pled guilty 
but would have insisted on going to trial.4  Absent clear and convincing 
evidence to the contrary, McMillan is bound by the representations he made 
at the time his plea was entered.5  Moreover, McMillan’s claims of defects in 
his sentencing as a habitual offender also are unavailing, as those claims are 
contradicted by the record and his knowing and voluntarily guilty plea.6 
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of McMillan’s opening brief that the 
appeal is without merit.  The issues raised on appeal are clearly controlled 
                                          
 
3 On the signed guilty plea form, McMillan indicated that he had freely and voluntarily 
decided to plead guilty, that no one, including his counsel, had threatened him or forced 
him to enter the plea, that his counsel had fully advised him of his rights in connection 
with the entry of the plea, and that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. 
4 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58-61 (Del. 1988).  The record reflects that by pleading 
guilty, McMillan, after losing a critical pretrial suppression motion, avoided the 
possibility of five additional convictions and the imposition of a life sentence. 
5 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
6 See Marshall v. State, 1998 WL 977123 (Del. Supr.) (citing Somerville v. State, 703 
A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997)). 
 
4
by settled Delaware law.  To the extent the issues on appeal implicate the 
exercise of judicial discretion, 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.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
7 See Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) 
(affirming a judgment of the Superior Court on grounds different than those relied upon 
by the Superior Court).