Title: Mojica v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ABEL MOJICA, 
 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 263, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0612012345  
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 23, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 10, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of August 2009, 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) 
The appellant, Abel Mojica, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  The State has filed a 
motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face 
of Mojica’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mojica was arrested in December 2006 on 
unrelated criminal charges and released on bail.  The bail was posted by a 
bondsperson, who discovered shortly after posting the bond that Mojica was 
 
2
wanted on a new warrant for an assault charge.  Because the new warrant violated 
the conditions of his release on bail and would result in forfeiture of the bond, the 
bondsperson sent agents to Mojica’s apartment to take him into custody.  While 
conducting surveillance, the bond agents observed Mojica engage in drug 
transactions outside his apartment complex.  Afterwards, they knocked on 
Mojica’s apartment door.  When the door was opened, the agents entered, seized 
Mojica, observed drugs in plain view, and found drugs in Mojica’s pockets.  The 
bond agents called police, who obtained a search warrant for the apartment and 
discovered a large quantity of drugs, paraphernalia, and a loaded gun. 
(3) 
Mojica was indicted in January 2007 on multiple drug and weapon 
charges.  He moved to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment at the time 
of his arrest on the ground that the bond agents were State actors and that the initial 
search violated his constitutional rights.  The Superior Court denied the motion to 
suppress.  Thereafter, Mojica accepted the State’s guilty plea offer and, on August 
14, 2007, pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver heroin and possession of a 
firearm during the commission of a felony.  In exchange, the State dismissed the 
remaining counts of the indictment. The Superior Court sentenced him 
immediately.  Mojica did not appeal.   
(4) 
On August 11, 2008, Mojica moved for postconviction relief raising 
six issues.  Five issues challenged the legality of the search on various grounds.  
 
3
The sixth was a claim that the State failed to preserve exculpatory evidence.  The 
Superior Court denied Mojica’s motion on the ground that three of the issues he 
raised were barred by Superior Court Criminal 61(i)(4) because the issues had been 
resolved against him in the ruling on his pretrial suppression motion.  The Superior 
Court found Mojica’s three remaining claims to be procedurally barred by Rule 
61(i)(3), because Mojica had failed to raise these claims in the proceedings leading 
to the judgment of conviction and because Mojica had failed to establish cause and 
prejudice for failing to raise the claims earlier.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions on 
appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis 
of the Superior Court=s well-reasoned decision dated April 28, 2009. The Superior 
Court did not err in concluding that Mojica’s motion for postconviction relief was 
procedurally barred and that Mojica had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles.  
Moreover, Mojica’s voluntary guilty plea waived his right to challenge any alleged 
errors occurring prior to the entry of his plea.1  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2003).