Title: Powell v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD D. POWELL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 496, 2000 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. S97-05-0107 
§                   S97-05-0113 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 8, 2001 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   March 13, 2001 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of March 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Richard D. Powell, filed this appeal 
from an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction 
relief.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In this appeal, Powell claims that the State improperly 
withdrew its offer of 8 years imprisonment in connection with his plea 
agreement.  Powell requests that his sentence be changed to 8 years 
                                                          
 
1Powell’s “motion for writ of plain error” is essentially a motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 
 
2 
imprisonment rather than the 10 years to which he agreed after the State 
improperly withdrew its offer. 
 
(3) 
On October 10, 1997, Powell pleaded guilty to trafficking in 
cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.2  On 
the trafficking conviction, Powell was sentenced to 10 years incarceration at 
Level V, to be suspended after 5 years mandatory incarceration for 6 months 
at Level III, followed by 2 years at Level II, followed by 30 months at Level 
I.  On the conviction for possession of a firearm, Powell was sentenced to 5 
years incarceration at Level V, consecutive to the trafficking conviction.  
Powell did not file a direct appeal from his convictions or sentences.  He did, 
however, file a motion for postconviction relief and several applications for 
reduction of sentence in the Superior Court, the most recent of which was 
based on the same claim he advances here. 
 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion under Rule 61, this Court must first 
determine that the motion satisfies the procedural requirements of the rule 
before addressing any substantive issues.3  Powell’s claim is procedurally 
barred, first, because it was not asserted in his previous motion for 
postconviction relief and there is no basis in the record for consideration of 
                                                          
 
2Pursuant to Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e) (1) (C). 
3Bailey v. State, Del. Supr., 588 A.2d 1121, 1127 (1991). 
 
3 
the claim in the interest of justice;4 second, because it was not asserted in the 
proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction and Powell has failed to 
show cause for relief and prejudice from a violation of his rights;5 and, third, 
because it was formerly adjudicated in a prior application for sentence 
reduction in the Superior Court and there is no basis in the record for 
reconsideration of the claim in the interest of justice.6  Moreover, there is no 
evidence that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or that there was a 
constitutional violation.7   
 
(5) 
Powell’s claim is without merit in any case.  Our review of the 
record, including the plea agreement, the guilty plea form and the transcript 
of the plea colloquy, reflects that Powell entered his guilty plea knowingly 
and voluntarily and understood his sentence would consist of 5 years 
incarceration on each charge to which he was pleading guilty.8  Absent clear 
                                                          
 
4Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2).  
5Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3). 
6Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (4). 
7Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5). 
8The “TIS Guidelines” of 5 years incarceration on the trafficking charge and 3 years 
incarceration on the firearm charge in the Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea Form do not 
support Powell’s claim.  A defendant has no legal or constitutional right to appeal a 
statutorily-authorized sentence on the basis that it does not conform to TIS guidelines.  
Mayes v. State, Del. Supr., 604 A.2d 839, 845 (1992).    
 
4 
and convincing evidence to the contrary, Powell is bound by the 
representations he made during his plea colloquy.9   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                          
 
9Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629, 632 (1997).