Title: Ifriqi v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
KAMIL IFRIQI,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 531, 2003 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. 00-05-0674; 0676;  
                                 0677 
                       05-05-1774; 1775 
 
Submitted: March 9, 2004  
   Decided: May 5, 2004    
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This fifth day of May 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it 
appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Kamil Ifriqi, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s September 29, 2003 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The plaintiff-appellee, the 
State of Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the 
 
 
-2-
ground that it is manifest on the face of Ifriqi’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
In May 2001, Ifriqi pleaded guilty to Robbery in the First Degree, 
Assault in the First Degree, and three counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony.  He was sentenced to 20 years incarceration at Level V, 
to be suspended after 13 years for decreasing levels of probation.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Ifriqi claims that: a) his guilty plea was coerced; b) his 
sentence is illegal; and c) his counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection 
with his guilty plea. 
 
(4) 
Ifriqi’s claim of a coerced guilty plea is refuted by the record.  On his 
guilty plea form, Ifriqi stated that: a) he had freely and voluntarily decided to plead 
guilty to the charges; b) no one, including his attorney, had threatened him or 
forced him to enter the plea; and c) his attorney had fully advised him of his rights 
in connection with the entry of the plea and he was satisfied with her 
representation.  Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Ifriqi is 
bound by the representations he made at the time his plea was entered.2   
 
(5) 
Ifriqi next claims that, because he pleaded guilty to only two 
substantive felonies (robbery and assault), but pleaded guilty to three weapon 
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
 
-3-
offenses (possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony), one of those 
weapon offenses must be vacated.  This Court has ruled that, even where the 
underlying felony charge has been dismissed, a defendant may still be convicted of 
a related weapon charge.3  This claim is, therefore, without merit.     
 
(6) 
Ifriqi’s final claim is that his counsel provided ineffective assistance.  
In order to prevail on that claim, Ifriqi must show that his counsel’s representation 
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s 
unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the 
proceedings would have been different.4  Although not insurmountable, the 
Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a “strong presumption that 
the representation was professionally reasonable.”5  This claim fails because Ifriqi 
has not shown that any alleged error on the part of his counsel resulted in prejudice 
to him.6 
 
(7) 
 It is manifest on the face of Ifriqi’s opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled 
                                                 
3 Fletcher v. State, 435 A.2d 1040, 1041 (Del. 1981). 
4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 
5 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 
6 Ifriqi also claims that he has improperly been deprived of good time credits on his 
weapons convictions.  This claim was not presented to the Superior Court in the first instance 
and we decline to rule on it here.  Supr. Ct. R. 8.  We note that Ifriqi has presented no factual 
support for this claim. 
 
 
-4-
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment 
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice