IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL J. ATKINSON , Defendant Below

Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 626, 2015 § § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 1407018228 § §

Submitted: A ugust 11, 2016 Decided: October 17 , 2016

Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , and VAUGHN , Justices.

O R D E R

This 17 th day of October 2016 , upon consideration of the appellant’s opening brief , the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below , it appears

to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Michael Atkinson , filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below o n the ground that it is manifest on the face of Atkinson’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. (2) The record reflects that Atkinson pled guilty on Ma rch 25, 2015

to Assault in the First Degr ee and Possession of a Deadly Weapon During2

the Commission of a Felony

. The charges carried a combined sentencing range of four years minimum mandatory to fifty years maximum . In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to cap its sentence recommendation to eight years at Level V incarceration. On June 24, 2015,

t he Superior Court sentenced Atkinson to thirty

- one years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after serving four years in prison for decreasing levels of supervision

. Atkinson did not file a direct appeal. (3) Instead, on July 25, 2015 , Atkinson filed a motion for postconviction relief. He asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to zealously represent him and for coercing him into pleading guilty by fals ely telling him that his family wanted him to accept the plea agreement. The Superior Court summarily dismissed Atkinson’s petition on October 23, 2015. This appeal followed. (4) In his opening brief on appeal, Atkinson argues that his trial

counsel was ineffective and that the Superior Court should have appointed a different lawyer to represent him. ( 5 ) To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel following the entry of a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that: (a)

counsel’s conduct f

ell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (b) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the3

defendant would not have pled guilty but would have insisted on going to

trial. 1 A defendant must make concrete allegations of cause and actual prejudice to substantiate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 2

Atkinson essentially argues in this case that his counsel was ineffective for coercing him into entering a plea and for failing to adequately investigate his

case

. ( 6 ) The record in this case belies Atkinson’s claims

. Atkinson stated under oath at his plea colloquy that he was satisf ied with his counsel’s representation . He indicated that he fully understood the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty. He stated that he was pleading guilty because he was satisfied that the State had sufficient evidence to prove him guilty of the charged offenses. H e also stated, among other things, that no one had threatened him or coerced him into pleading guilty. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Atkinson is bound by these statements. 3 We thus reject Atkinson ’ s claim s that his guilt y plea was involuntary due to his counsel’s coercion and/or ineffective

assistance.

1 Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 2 Younger v. State , 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1980). 3 Somerville v. State , 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice