Case Title: Robinson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 467, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JHAVON ROBINSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 467, 2005 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0211000006 and 
§  0310013976 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 10, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 18, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of April 2006, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jhavon Robinson, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  
We find no merit to the issues Robinson raises in his opening brief.  
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Robinson pled guilty in July 2004 to 
two unrelated charges.  Robinson pled guilty to one count of trafficking 
cocaine, which stemmed from a 2002 incident, and to one count of 
possession with intent to deliver cocaine, which stemmed from a 2003 arrest. 
 
2
The Superior Court sentenced Robinson immediately to eight years at Level 
V imprisonment to be followed by decreasing levels of supervision. In 
September 2004, Robinson filed a motion for correction of sentence, which 
was denied.  In June 2005, he filed a petition for postconviction relief, which 
also was denied.  This appeal followed. 
(3) 
Robinson’s motion for postconviction relief challenged only his 
trafficking conviction.  Robinson argued that the police lacked probable 
cause to arrest him for trafficking and that the evidence seized from him 
pursuant to that illegal arrest should have been suppressed.  Robinson also 
argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression 
motion and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by his trial 
counsel’s ineffectiveness.   
(4) 
The Superior Court denied Robinson’s motion on its merits, 
among other reasons, because the court concluded there was neither cause 
nor prejudice to Robinson from his counsel’s failure to file a pretrial 
suppression motion.1  In a careful analysis, the Superior Court concluded 
that the search and seizure of Robinson was lawful.2  Thus, the Superior 
Court concluded, if counsel had filed a suppression motion, it would have 
                                                 
1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 693-94 (1984). 
2 Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 868 (Del. 1999). 
 
3
been denied.  Consequently, counsel committed no error that could have 
undermined Robinson’s decision to plead guilty.3 
(5) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions on 
appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned opinion dated 
September 22, 2005.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
Robinson had failed to meet the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 
for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.  Having concluded that 
Robinson’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and was not 
the product of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find no abuse of 
discretion in the Superior Court’s summary denial of Robinson’s motion 
without a hearing. 4     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57, 59 (1985). 
4 Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 151 (Del. 1996).