Case Title: Weatherspoon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 591, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RECARDO B. WEATHERSPOON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 591, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0001003156  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 7, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: February 28, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of February 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Recardo Weatherspoon, filed this 
appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction 
relief.  The State has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment 
on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Weatherspoon’s opening brief 
that his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Weatherspoon pled guilty in June 2000 
to one count of delivery of cocaine and two counts of conspiracy.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Weatherspoon as an habitual offender, in 
 
2
accordance with his plea agreement, to a total period of seventeen years at 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving thirteen years for four 
years of probation.  Weatherspoon did not appeal to this Court.  In August 
2002, Weatherspoon filed his first petition for postconviction relief.  
Weatherspoon argued: (i) his guilty plea was not voluntary due to his 
counsel’s ineffective assistance; (ii) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; 
and (iii) the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying Weatherspoon’s 
motion to disqualify his trial counsel and appoint substitute counsel below. 
The Superior Court addressed each of these claims and denied 
Weatherspoon’s petition on its merits. 
 
(3) 
The gist of Weatherspoon’s complaints is that he was innocent 
of the charges against him, that the police and prosecutor used false evidence 
to indict him, and that his trial counsel did not properly investigate the case 
and instead coerced Weatherspoon into pleading guilty.  After reviewing 
Weatherspoon’s petition, the Superior Court, without holding a hearing, 
concluded that Weatherspoon’s claims of ineffective assistance were vague 
and unsubstantiated and that his claim concerning false evidence was not 
supported by the record.   Accordingly, the Superior Court concluded that 
Weatherspoon had failed to sustain his burden of proving that his trial 
counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that counsel’s 
 
3
alleged errors had prejudiced Weatherspoon’s decision to plead guilty.  The 
Superior Court held that Weatherspoon had entered his guilty plea 
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 
(4) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective positions, 
we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated 
October 1, 2002.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
Weatherspoon had failed to sustain his burden of establishing ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the 
Superior Court’s denial of Weatherspoon’s motion for postconviction relief 
without holding a hearing. *   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
* See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 11 (Del. 1996).