Title: Hobbs v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TITUS W. HOBBS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 573, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1310010002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  May 20, 20161 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 5, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of July 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm,2 and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Titus W. Hobbs, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order sentencing him for Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”).  The State of 
                                                 
1 The motion to affirm was filed on March 23, 2016, but was held in abeyance pending 
preparation of the transcript of the guilty plea colloquy.  The transcript was filed with the Court 
on May 20, 2016. 
2 After the filing of the motion to affirm, Hobbs moved for leave to amend his opening brief to 
replace an incorrect exhibit in his appendix with the correct document and to add a claim that 
testimony was omitted from transcript excerpt of a suppression hearing. Under Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), no response to a motion to affirm is permitted unless requested by the Court.  The 
Court did not request a response and finds no cause to permit a response in this case, but will 
accept the corrected appendix exhibit.  
2 
 
Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Hobbs’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in January 2014, a Kent County grand jury 
indicted Hobbs for Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”).  Hobbs filed a motion to 
suppress on April 1, 2014 and an amended motion to suppress on April 23, 2014.  
Hobbs argued that his statements, the field test results, and Breathalyzer test results 
should be suppressed because the police did not have reasonable articulable 
suspicion to stop him.  After a hearing, the Superior Court denied the motion on 
September 16, 2014.   
(3) 
On October 28, 2014, Hobbs filed a motion to suppress or in the 
alternative a motion in limine to prohibit evidence of the intoxilyzer test results 
because the proper procedures were not followed.  Hobbs’ counsel filed a motion 
to withdraw, which the Superior Court granted.  New counsel entered an 
appearance for Hobbs. 
(4) 
On July 21, 2015, Hobbs pled guilty to his fifth DUI.  On September 
29, 2015, Hobbs was sentenced to five years of Level V incarceration, suspended 
after eighteen months and successful completion of the Reflections Program for 
one year of Level III probation.  This appeal followed.   
3 
 
(5) 
After the notice of appeal was filed, Hobbs filed an affidavit 
requesting leave to dismiss his counsel and to represent himself on appeal.  We 
remanded the matter to the Superior Court for a hearing on Hobbs’ request.  The 
Superior Court determined that Hobbs’ decision to represent himself on appeal was 
made knowingly and voluntarily.  After the matter was returned to this Court from 
remand, we granted Hobbs’ request to exercise his right to self-representation and 
granted his counsel leave to withdraw. 
(6) 
Hobbs’ claims on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) his guilty 
plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not informed of certain 
essential elements of DUI; (ii) he cannot be guilty of DUI because his counsel 
informed the Superior Court during the September 2014 suppression hearing that 
his situation did not meet the statutory elements of DUI; and (iii) the police lacked 
reasonable articulable suspicion to approach him and failed to follow the 
procedures for an intoxilyzer test.  
(7) 
The disposition of Hobbs’ claims hinges on this Court’s determination 
of whether Hobbs entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.  A knowing and 
voluntary guilty plea waives any objection to alleged errors and defects occurring 
4 
 
before entry of the plea.3  The record in this case reflects that Hobbs knowingly 
and voluntarily entered his guilty plea.   
(8) 
In the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, Hobbs indicated that he 
freely and voluntarily decided to plead guilty, no one forced him to plead guilty, 
and he understood that he was waiving certain constitutional rights by pleading 
guilty.  During his guilty plea colloquy with the Superior Court, Hobbs stated that 
he understood he was waiving certain constitutional rights by pleading guilty, no 
one had forced him to plead guilty, and that he was guilty of DUI.  In the absence 
of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Hobbs is bound by these 
representations.4  To the extent Hobbs claims his counsel was ineffective for 
failing to inform him of certain essential elements of DUI, we will not consider a 
claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal.5  
Hobbs’ knowing and voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of his claims 
regarding his motion to suppress and the suppression hearing. 
 
 
                                                 
3 Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2003); Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 
1988). 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
5 Johnson v. State, 967 A.2d 234, 233-34 (Del. 2009). 
5 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to 
Amend is DENIED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice