Title: Conquest v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERNEST CONQUEST, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 435, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. S00-05-0561 
§  Cr. ID 0005013191 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 10, 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 parties’ 
briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Ernest Conquest, pled guilty in July 
2000 to one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Conquest to five years incarceration at Level V, to 
be suspended after serving three years minimum mandatory and completion 
of the Key Program for decreasing levels of supervision.  Conquest did not 
appeal to this Court.  In February 2002, Conquest, represented by different 
 
2
counsel, filed his first petition for postconviction relief,1 alleging that his 
guilty plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently due to his trial 
counsel’s ineffective assistance.  The Superior Court denied Conquest’s 
motion after holding a hearing.  This appeal ensued. 
 
(2) 
In his postconviction motion, Conquest asserted that his trial 
counsel was ineffective for the following reasons:  (i) counsel failed to 
explain to Conquest or pursue on his behalf an appropriate suppression 
motion; (ii) counsel failed to conduct proper discovery and investigate 
Conquest’s case; and (iii) counsel improperly advised Conquest to plead 
guilty to possession with intent to deliver when the evidence only supported 
a charge of simple possession.   
(3) 
The Superior Court directed Conquest’s trial counsel to respond 
to Conquest’s allegations.  Thereafter, the Superior Court held a hearing on 
the motion at which both Conquest and his former counsel testified.  After 
the hearing, the Superior Court issued a ruling from the bench denying 
Conquest’s motion.  After reviewing Conquest’s contentions and resolving 
questions of credibility, the Superior Court held that Conquest had failed to 
sustain his burden of proving that his trial counsel’s performance was 
objectively unreasonable and that counsel’s errors had prejudiced Conquest 
                                                 
1 See DEL. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61. 
 
3
in his decision to plead guilty.2  The Superior Court concluded that Conquest 
had entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 
(4) 
Having carefully considered the parties= respective briefs, 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 issued from the 
bench on July 3, 2002.  The Superior Court did not err in concluding that 
Conquest 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 Conquest’s motion for postconviction relief.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
s/Joseph T. Walsh  
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 See MacDonald v. State, 778 A.2d 1064, 1074-75 (Del. 2001) (setting forth the 
two-prong test for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the context of a 
guilty plea). 
3 See Blackwell v. State, 736 A.2d 971, 972 (Del. 1999) (appeal from Superior 
Court’s denial of postconviction relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion).