Title: Valasquez v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BERSALINDO VALASQUEZ,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 122, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr.A. Nos. S99-05-0187 
§                   S99-05-0188
§
Submitted: April 30, 2001
  Decided:   June 21, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 21st day of June 2001, 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, Bersalindo Valasquez, filed this appeal
from an order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The State of Delaware
has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
2Robinson v. State, Del. Supr., 291 A.2d 279 (1972) (permitting the acceptance by
the trial court of a guilty plea in the absence of an admission of guilt).  The plea was
entered pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e) (1) (C).
-2-
is manifest on the face of Valasquez’ opening brief that the appeal is without
merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Valasquez claims that the failure of the arresting
officer to advise him of his right to contact the Mexican Embassy pursuant to
Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations violated his
due process rights, thereby tainting the entire process by which he was
convicted and sentenced.
(3)
In June 1999, Valasquez was charged with Rape in the First
Degree and Kidnaping in the Second Degree.  In February 2000, Valasquez
moved to suppress evidence of the crimes based in part on his contention that
his due process rights were violated when he was not given an opportunity to
contact the Mexican embassy at the time of his arrest.  Valasquez entered a
plea of guilty on the same morning his motions to suppress were scheduled to
be heard by the Superior Court. 
(4)
In March 2000, Valasquez entered a Robinson plea2 to charges
of Rape in the Second Degree and Kidnaping in the Second Degree.  He was
3There is no contention, nor does the record reflect, that the court interpreter failed
to carry out her duties in accordance with the procedures adopted by this Court for court
interpreters in Administrative Directive No. 107, Supreme Court of Delaware (Apr. 4,
1996).
4Downer v. State, Del. Supr., 543 A.2d 309, 311-12 (1988).  Notably, the
transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that Valasquez understood there were several pre-
trial motions scheduled to be heard the morning he entered his guilty plea and he further
understood that, by entering his guilty plea, he was waiving his right to have those motions
decided by the Superior Court.
-3-
sentenced to 10 years incarceration at Level V on the rape charge and 2 years
incarceration at Level V on the kidnaping charge.  Because Valasquez spoke
Spanish, a Spanish interpreter assisted him with his Truth in Sentencing Guilty
Plea form (which was translated into Spanish) and simultaneously translated
into Spanish his plea colloquy with the Superior Court.  Valasquez did not file
a direct appeal from his convictions or sentences.
(5) 
Valasquez’ claim that his due process rights were violated is
unavailing.  Valasquez’ guilty plea form and his plea colloquy, both of which
were translated into Spanish,3 reflect that his guilty plea was entered
voluntarily. Valasquez’ voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any
alleged defects or errors occurring prior to the entry of the plea, including his
instant claim.4  Even if Valasquez had not waived his claim of a due process
violation, the claim fails for lack of a sufficient factual basis in any case, since
Valasquez has not identified “the specific due process rights denied to him by
5Barrow v. State, Del. Supr., 749 A.2d 1230, 1242 (2000).
-4-
the police officers’ alleged failure to inform him of his Article 36 entitlement
and has failed to explain how the [Mexican] Consulate could have assisted his
defense in any way.”5 
(6)
It is manifest on the face of Valasquez’ opening brief that this
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled
by settled 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’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment
of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey          
Chief Justice