1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

V. ) I.D.: 1904016280

)

CARLOS FERRER-VASQUEZ, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

And now, this 7th day of September, 2022, the Court makes the following 

findings:

1. The Defendant pled guilty to Murder, 2nd degree, a firearms offense 

and violation of the Protection from Abuse Order (“PFA”). He was represented by 

counsel. On October 30, 2020, he was sentenced to life imprisonment on the 

murder count, two years on the weapons offense and probation for criminal 

contempt of the PFA. No appeal was filed. 

2. On February 22, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for 

postconviction relief under Delaware Criminal Rule 61. In order to invoke the 

Court’s review of a conviction under Rule 61, the motion for relief must be filed 

within one year of the final order of conviction.1 Because the motion for relief 

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). 
2

under Rule 61 was filed more than one year after the date of sentence and no 

appeal was filed, Defendant’s motion is time barred. 

3. While this disposes of Defendant’s motion under Rule 61, the Court 

notes that among Defendant’s claims is one that his attorney failed to advise him of 

his right to take an appeal of his guilty plea and sentence. Notably absent from his 

petition, however, is any specific grounds upon which to take an appeal had he 

actually filed one. 

4. Because his was a guilty plea, his available grounds for appeal are 

limited.2 In reviewing the rest of Defendant’s Rule 61 motion, it appears that his 

main complaint is that he received a sentence in excess of his expectations as a 

result of his guilty plea. The Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea form, however, 

clearly explains that the potential sentence for a guilty plea to Murder 2nd degree 

is 15 years to life imprisonment. There was no agreement by the State to “cap” its 

recommendation as part of the plea agreement.3 

5. The Court has reviewed the guilty plea colloquy and, consistent with 

the plea agreement, the Defendant was specifically advised that he faced a 

potential life sentence. Defendant’s trial counsel has supplemented the record with 

2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i).

3 The Court notes that the Defendant is bound by his representations in signing the 

Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea form and during his plea colloquy. Moreover, 

even if a cap had been negotiated, the Court is not bound to impose it. See 

Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997).
3

his affidavit, attesting that he advised the Defendant that the guilty plea waived his 

right to appeal.4 Other papers appended to counsel’s affidavit make it clear that 

trial counsel tried, but failed, to negotiate a lesser charge or a sentencing cap in the 

State’s recommendation. Counsel did note that the Murder 2nd degree guilty plea 

took the Defendant out from under a mandatory life sentence upon conviction for 

the charged offense of Murder 1st degree. 

6. Defendant wound up with a life sentence for Murder 2nd degree as a 

matter of judicial discretion and not as a mandated sentence for Murder 1st degree. 

Thus, his life sentence was discretionary and not mandatory. That is probably cold 

comfort to him. But the fact that trial counsel’s efforts to mitigate Defendant’s 

conduct or sentence did not persuade the Court is not ineffective assistance of 

counsel. 

7. Defendant’s motion under Rule 61 is time barred. The motion is 

DENIED.

4 D.I. 41 ¶ 8 (Def. Couns. Aff.).
4

8. Defendant has also filed a Motion for Transcripts and a Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel. Both of these motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Charles E. Butler, Resident Judge