Title: Wilmer v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONNIE D. WILMER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 359, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-04-0208R1   
§                   IN00-04-0210R1 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 6, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   September 27, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 27th day of September 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ronnie D. Wilmer, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s June 19, 2002 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) 
In July 2000, Wilmer pleaded guilty1 to Possession of Cocaine 
(as a lesser-included offense of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine), 
                                                          
 
1Pursuant to SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 11(e) (1) (C).   
 
2
Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances, and a violation 
of probation (“VOP”).  In August 2000, Wilmer was sentenced to a total of 
10 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 7 years for 
decreasing levels of probation.  Wilmer did not appeal his convictions or 
sentences.   
 
(3) 
In his appeal, Wilmer claims that his counsel provided 
ineffective assistance by a) failing to inform him about the basis for the 
State’s case, investigate the facts, or meet or communicate with him about 
the case, b)  re-scheduling the VOP hearing repeatedly and c) waiving his 
constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. 
 
(4) 
The burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel is 
on the party asserting it.  Where the claim arises in the context of a guilty 
plea, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, 
but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have 
insisted on going to trial.”2 
 
(5) 
Wilmer has provided no factual support for his claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel.  His plea to simple Possession of Cocaine 
provided him a substantial benefit since a conviction of Possession with 
Intent to Deliver Cocaine would have made him eligible for habitual 
 
3
offender status and a possible life sentence.3  Moreover, the signed plea 
agreement and Truth-in-Sentencing forms reflect that Wilmer was satisfied 
with his counsel’s representation at the hearing and that his guilty plea was 
voluntarily entered.  In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the 
contrary, Wilmer is bound by those representations.4    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
2MacDonald v. State, 778 A.2d 1064, 1075 (Del. 2001) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 
U.S. 52, 59 (1985)). 
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(b). 
4Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).