Title: Ayers v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRANDON AYERS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 245, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0004013377 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 14, 2002 
  Decided: July 24, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of July 2002, upon consideration of the appellant's opening 
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
In October 2001, on the day his trial was scheduled to begin, the 
defendant-appellant Brandon Ayers pleaded guilty to four drug offenses. The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Ayers to seven and a half years 
imprisonment, suspended after five years for two and a half years probation.  In 
January 2002, Ayers filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the Superior 
Court summarily denied.  This appeal followed.  The State has filed a motion to 
 
 
-2-
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Ayers’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
Ayers raises the following three issues in his opening brief on appeal:  
(i) his counsel was ineffective; (ii) the State failed to disclose exculpatory 
evidence; and (iii) the police failed to provide him with Miranda warnings.  It is 
well-settled, however, that a voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any 
alleged defects or errors occurring prior to the entry of the plea.1  Accordingly, we 
conclude that Ayers has waived any claims concerning either the State’s alleged 
failure to disclose evidence or the alleged failure to give Miranda warnings. 
 
(3) 
With respect to his claim that his counsel was ineffective, Ayers 
contends that his counsel failed to maintain contact with him and failed to 
subpoena credible witnesses for his defense.  Ayers’ postconviction motion failed 
to identify with specificity any alleged witnesses that his counsel failed to contact.  
Moreover, the Superior Court directed defense counsel to respond to Ayers’ 
allegations, and defense counsel contradicted Ayers’ assertions.  Accordingly, we 
find no error or abuse in the Superior Court’s conclusion that Ayers’s conclusory 
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were unsupported by the record.2  
                                                 
1 See Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 311-12 (Del. 1988). 
2 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59-60 (Del. 1988). 
 
 
-3-
Consequently, we find it to be manifest on the face of Ayers’ opening brief that his 
appeal is without merit.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele________________ 
Justice