Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HENRY JOHNSON, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 326, 2010 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0904000046 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 29, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 4, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of October 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm and the Superior Court record, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Henry Johnson, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s May 18, 2010 denial of his motion for postconviction relief 
pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  The appellee, State of 
Delaware, has moved to affirm the Superior Court judgment on the ground 
 
2 
that it is manifest on the face of Johnson’s opening brief that the appeal is 
without merit.1  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
In May 2009, Johnson was indicted on thirteen offenses 
including Robbery in the First Degree, two counts of Aggravated Menacing, 
three counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a 
Felony and three counts of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree.  On 
October 27, 2009, Johnson pled guilty to one count of Attempted Robbery in 
the First Degree and one count of Possession of a Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony (“PDWDCF”).  Johnson was sentenced to ten years 
at Level V suspended after five years minimum mandatory, for Level IV 
work release and probation.  A nolle prosequi was entered on the remaining 
charges. 
(3) 
On January 25, 2010, Johnson filed a motion for modification 
of sentence.  Johnson asked the Superior Court to suspend three of his 
mandatory five years and order his placement in the New Vision drug 
rehabilitation program.  By order dated January 29, 2010, the Superior Court 
denied Johnson’s motion on the basis that the five-year sentence was 
mandatory and could not be reduced or suspended, and that the sentence was 
appropriate. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3 
(4) 
On March 11, 2010, Johnson filed a motion for postconviction 
relief.  Johnson alleged that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary 
due to the ineffective assistance of his defense counsel.  Johnson also 
expressed remorse for his crimes and stated that he has a job waiting for him 
when he is released from prison. 
(5) 
The Superior Court referred Johnson’s postconviction motion to 
a Commissioner for proposed findings and recommendations.  The 
Commissioner, in turn, directed that Johnson’s defense counsel file an 
affidavit responding to the allegations of ineffectiveness.  In a sworn 
particularized affidavit filed on April 22, 2010, defense counsel denied the 
allegations that he had tricked Johnson into pleading guilty and had not fully 
explained the charges or the penalties that Johnson possibly faced. 
(6) 
By report dated May 4, 2010, the Commissioner recommended 
that Johnson’s postconviction motion should be denied.  The Commissioner 
found that Johnson’s remorse and job prospect were “facts in mitigation of 
his sentence,” which is “mandatory and cannot be reduced or suspended.”  
The Commissioner also found, based upon defense counsel’s affidavit, 
which the Commissioner found credible, and the transcribed plea colloquy 
 
4 
and guilty plea forms in the record, that Johnson had failed to establish his 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.2 
(7) 
Following de novo review, the Superior Court issued an order 
dated May 18, 2010 that adopted the Commissioner’s report and 
recommendation and denied Johnson’s motion for postconviction relief.  
This appeal followed. 
(8) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Johnson continues to argue his 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  The Court notes Johnson’s 
emphasis of a previously undeveloped claim that he is “innocent” of 
PDWDCF and therefore should not have been charged with Robbery in the 
First Degree. 
(9) 
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ positions on 
appeal and the Superior Court record.  It is manifest that the denial of 
postconviction relief should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s 
May 18, 2010 order that adopted the Commissioner’s May 4, 2010 report 
and recommendation. 
(10) There is no support in the record for Johnson’s allegations that 
his defense counsel tricked him into pleading guilty or was otherwise 
                                          
 
2 “In the context of a guilty plea challenge, [a defendant must demonstrate] `that there is a 
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s [alleged] errors, he would not have pleaded 
guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’”  Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 60 (Del. 
1988) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)). 
 
5 
ineffective.  During the plea colloquy, Johnson admitted that he was guilty 
of both Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and PDWDCF.  In the 
absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Johnson is now 
bound by those representations.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
3 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).