Title: Colburn v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 327, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES COLBURN, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 327, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1411002179 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 17, 2016 
   Decided: October 5, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief, the motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Charles Colburn, filed this appeal from a Superior 
Court order denying his first motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court 
Criminal Rule 61.  The State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the judgment 
below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Colburn’s opening brief that 
his appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Colburn was arrested on multiple charges 
arising from the discovery of almost 1,500 bags of heroin and multiple firearms in 
his car.  On January 7, 2015, Colburn waived indictment and pled guilty to Drug 
 
2 
Dealing (Tier IV), Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony 
(“PFDCF”), and Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”).  In the 
plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend a sentence with non-suspended 
Level V time of nine years and the State agreed not to seek habitual offender 
sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).  Colburn was sentenced as follows: (i) for 
Drug Dealing (Tier IV), twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, suspended 
after two years for twenty-three years of Level IV (Department of Correction 
Discretion), suspended after one year for eighteen months of Level III probation; 
(ii) for PFDCF, five years of Level V incarceration; and (iii) for PFBPP, two years 
of Level V incarceration.  Colburn did not appeal the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(3) 
On March 30, 2015, Colburn filed a motion for reduction of sentence, 
which the Superior Court denied.  On February 5, 2016, Colburn filed a motion for 
postconviction relief under Rule 61.  Colburn argued that his counsel was 
ineffective because she incorrectly informed him that he was ineligible for 
concurrent sentences and she failed to argue at his sentencing that he was eligible 
for concurrent sentences.  After the matter was referred to a Superior Court 
Commissioner and Colburn’s former counsel provided an affidavit, the 
Commissioner recommended denial of Colburn’s motion for postconviction relief.1  
                                                 
1 State v. Colburn, 2016 WL 1756503 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2016). 
 
3 
The Superior Court accepted the Commissioner’s recommendation and denied 
Colburn’s motion for postconviction relief.2  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
In his opening brief, Colburn argues that the Superior Court erred in 
denying his motion for postconviction relief because he would not have pled guilty 
if his counsel had correctly informed him that he was eligible for concurrent 
sentencing on his PFBPP conviction.  Colburn also claims that he did not have the 
opportunity to file objections to the Commissioner’s report and recommendation 
because he did not receive the report.  This Court reviews the Superior Court’s 
denial of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion and questions of law de 
novo.3  The procedural bars of Rule 61 do not apply to Colburn’s timely claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel.   
(5) 
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel after entry of 
a guilty plea, Colburn must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell 
below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability 
that but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted 
on proceeding to trial.4  Although not insurmountable, there is a strong 
presumption that counsel’s representation was professionally reasonable.5  A 
defendant asserting a claim of ineffective assistance must make concrete 
                                                 
2 State v. Colburn, 2016 WL 3248222 (Del. June 1, 2016). 
3 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 
4 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 59 (Del. 1988). 
5 Albury, 551 A.2d at 59. 
 
4 
allegations of cause and actual prejudice to substantiate a claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel.6   
(6) 
As of July 9, 2014, judges have the discretion to impose concurrent, 
rather than consecutive, sentences.7  Certain crimes, including PFDCF, are not 
eligible for concurrent sentences.8  A defendant convicted of PFBPP is not eligible 
for a concurrent sentence if the defendant was previously convicted of a Title 11 
violent felony.9  A Title 11 violent felony is defined as a “Title 11 offense 
identified in § 4201(c) of this title, or any offense set forth under the laws of the 
United States, any other state or any territory of the United States which is the 
same as or equivalent to any of the offenses designated as a Title 11 offense 
identified in § 4201(c) of this title.”10  Relying on the listing of his 2009 conviction 
for Felon in Possession of a Firearm in the United States District Court for the 
District of Delaware as a Title 11 non-violent felony in his plea agreement, 
Colburn argues that this previous conviction was not a Title 11 violent felony and 
therefore he could receive concurrent sentences for his PFBPP conviction (as well 
as his Drug Dealing conviction). 
                                                 
6 Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990). 
7 11 Del. C. § 3901(d); Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 2016). 
8 11 Del. C. § 3901(d). 
9 Id. 
10 11 Del. C. § 3901(e). 
 
5 
(7) 
   Even assuming Colburn were eligible for concurrent sentencing on 
his PFBPP conviction, he has not shown a reasonable probability that if he had 
known he was eligible he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on 
proceeding to trial.  By pleading guilty, Colburn obtained the benefit of the State 
agreeing not to seek habitual offender sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), 
which Colburn was eligible for, and the State agreeing to recommend non-
suspended Level V time of nine years.  If Colburn had insisted on going to trial, he 
faced the risk of life imprisonment as a habitual offender.   
(8) 
In addition, Colburn ignores that even if he were eligible for 
concurrent sentencing, it was within the Superior Court judge’s discretion to 
impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for his crimes.11  Colburn does not 
point to anything in the record to suggest the Superior Court judge would have 
imposed a concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentence.  The sentencing transcript 
reflects that the Superior Court judge was concerned by the serious nature of 
Colburn’s crimes and his eligibility for habitual offender status.  The notion that 
Colburn would have insisted on proceeding to trial and facing the risk of life 
imprisonment if he had known the Superior Court judge had the discretion to 
impose concurrent sentences for two of his crimes is not supported by the record or 
credible.          
                                                 
11 Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d at 840-41 (describing amendment of § 3901(d) to give judges 
discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences). 
 
6 
(9) 
Colburn’s Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and guilty plea 
colloquy contradict his contention that he was coerced into pleading guilty.  In the 
Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form, Colburn indicated that he freely and 
voluntarily decided to plead guilty, no one, including his counsel and the State, 
forced him to plead guilty, and he understood he was waiving certain constitutional 
rights.  During the guilty plea colloquy, Colburn stated that he was guilty of Drug 
Dealing, PFDCF, and PFBPP, he understood the Superior Court was not bound by 
the sentencing recommendation, and he was satisfied with his counsel’s 
representation.  Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, which he 
has not identified, Colburn is bound by his representations during the guilty plea 
colloquy and in the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form.12 
(10) As set forth above, Colburn has not satisfied the standard for an 
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  The Superior Court did not err therefore in 
denying Colburn’s motion for postconviction relief.  As to Colburn’s contention 
that he did not have the opportunity to file objections to the Commissioner’s report 
and recommendations because he did not receive the report, we have considered 
his arguments on appeal regarding the merits of the Superior Court’s decision and 
concluded that those arguments are without merit.  
 
 
                                                 
12 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice