Title: Eaddy v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS E. EADDY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 47, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0204005718 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 16, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 24, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of May 2006, 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, Thomas E. Eaddy, filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s January 12, 2006 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 judgment 
of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the 
 
2
appellant’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.1  We agree and 
AFFIRM.   
 
(2) 
In August 2002, Eaddy pleaded guilty to Possession of Heroin 
With Intent to Deliver, one of several drug offenses with which he had been 
charged.  Eaddy was sentenced to 20 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after a mandatory term of 15 years for 5 years of Level IV 
supervision.  The remaining drug charges were dismissed.  
 
(3) 
In March 2004, Eaddy moved for postconviction relief on the 
ground that his attorney had provided ineffective assistance.  The Superior 
Court summarily denied the motion and Eaddy did not file an appeal.  Eaddy 
again moved for postconviction relief in November 2005 and raised two 
additional claims of ineffective assistance.  The Superior Court again 
summarily dismissed the motion on the ground that Eaddy had failed to 
demonstrate that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not 
have pleaded guilty, but instead would have insisted on proceeding to trial.2   
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Eaddy claims that the Superior Court should 
have granted his motion for postconviction relief because his counsel failed 
to share information with him on a timely basis and failed to fully explain to 
him the consequences of pleading guilty.   
                                                 
1 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
2 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985). 
 
3
 
(5) 
We find that Eaddy’s postconviction motion was properly 
denied, albeit on a different basis than that cited by the Superior Court.3  
Because Eaddy’s claims of ineffective assistance were either known or 
should have been known at the time he filed his previous postconviction 
motion, they are barred in this proceeding.4  Moreover, we do not find either 
that consideration of these claims is warranted in the interest of justice5 or 
that Eaddy has presented a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice that 
would permit our consideration of his claims.6  
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Eaddy’s opening brief that the 
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 motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
  
 
                                                 
3 Unitrin, Inc. v. American General Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995). 
4 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (2). 
5 Id. 
6 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (5).