Title: Crump v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERNEST A. CRUMP, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 72, 2004 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. No. IK02-09-0326 
§  Cr. ID No. 0208021763 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 27, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April         5, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of April 2004, upon consideration of the opening brief, 
the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ernest Crump, filed this appeal from 
the Superior Court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief.  The 
State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that 
it is manifest on the face of Crump’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
Crump pled guilty in February 2003 to one count of escape 
after conviction.  The Superior Court sentenced Crump, consistent with 
 
2
Crump’s plea agreement, to one year of incarceration followed by probation.   
Crump did not file a direct appeal to this Court.  Instead, he filed separate 
motions in the Superior Court seeking a modification of his sentence or a 
withdrawal of his guilty plea.  The Superior Court denied both motions.  
Thereafter, Crump filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, which the Superior Court also denied.  
This appeal followed. 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Crump asserts that he was 
denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel refused to 
file certain pretrial motions that Crump had requested.  Crump asserts that 
his attorney’s failure to follow his instructions resulted in Crump’s coerced 
guilty plea.   
(4) 
To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a 
defendant must demonstrate that (a) counsel’s conduct fell below an 
objective standard of reasonableness; and (b) there is a reasonable 
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pled 
guilty but would have insisted on going to trial.1  A defendant must make 
concrete allegations of cause and actual prejudice to substantiate a claim of 
                                                 
1 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 
 
3
ineffective assistance of counsel or else risk summary dismissal.2  In 
Crump’s guilty plea form and during his plea colloquy, he expressed 
satisfaction with his counsel’s performance.  In the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, Crump is bound by these statements.3  
Crump has presented no clear contrary evidence to call his prior sworn 
testimony into question.     
(5) 
Crump has failed to substantiate his claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel by the attorney who represented him during the guilty 
plea proceeding.  We find it manifest on the face of Crump’s opening brief 
that his appeal is without merit.  The State's motion to affirm shall be 
granted.    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1980). 
3 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).