Title: Parker v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 193, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 15, 2001

1Super. Ct. Crim. R. 35(a).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HUBERT E. PARKER,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 193, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr.A. Nos. S99-01-0063, 0065,
§                             0067
§                   S99-04-0266, 0270,
§                              0272
§                   S99-02-0603
Submitted: September 4, 2001
  Decided:   October 15, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 15th day of October 2001, upon consideration of the briefs on
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Hubert E. Parker, filed an appeal from
the April 9, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion to correct
an illegal sentence.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
2Pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e) (1) (C).
3Pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 4214(a).
-2-
(2)
In this appeal, Parker claims that his sentence for third degree
burglary as a lesser-included offense of second degree burglary was improper
because: a) the second degree burglary charge was dismissed by the
prosecutor; b) the second degree burglary charge did not appear in the plea
agreement; c) the sentence subjected him to double jeopardy; and d) the
sentence amounted to an enhancement of punishment in violation of due
process. 
(3)
In December 1998, Parker was arrested for two burglaries and
other related offenses.  He was arrested again in February 1999 for two drug
offenses.  In March 1999, Parker was arrested a third time for another
burglary and related offenses.  On January 24, 2000, Parker entered guilty
pleas to seven of the numerous outstanding charges against him, including one
count of Burglary in the Third Degree as a lesser-included offense of Burglary
in the Second Degree.2  He was sentenced to 5 years incarceration at Level V
as an habitual offender3 for that conviction.  Parker did not file a direct appeal
of his convictions or sentences, but did file three separate postconviction
motions challenging the third degree burglary conviction and sentence.  The
4Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 244, 2000, Veasey, C.J., 2000 WL 1152406
(July 26, 2000) (ORDER); Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 341, 2000, Walsh, J., 2001
WL 213389 (Feb. 26, 2001) (ORDER); Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 542, 2000,
Berger, J., 2001WL 292596 (Mar. 14, 2001) (ORDER).
5Another second degree burglary charge was dismissed by the prosecutor as part
of the plea agreement (S99-01-0060), but that had no effect on the charge to which Parker
pleaded guilty (S99-01-0063).
-3-
Superior Court’s denials of those motions were affirmed by this Court on
appeal.4 
(4)
Parker’s claims are without merit.  He contends that the second
degree burglary charge was dismissed by the prosecutor and does not appear
in the plea agreement, but those contentions are contradicted by the record.
The plea agreement, plea colloquy, docket sheet and sentencing order clearly
reflect that the third degree burglary charge to which Parker pleaded guilty
was deemed to be a lesser-included offense of second degree burglary.5
Parker further contends that his sentence violates double jeopardy and
enhances his sentence in violation of due process, but he presents no legal or
factual support for those contentions.  Moreover, Parker entered into a plea
agreement with the State.  During his plea colloquy, Parker stated that he had
read the plea agreement, had signed it and understood it.  Responding
specifically to questions from the Superior Court judge, Parker stated that he
6Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629, 632 (1997).
7Parker v.State, Del. Supr.,  No. 244, 2000, Veasey, C.J., 2000 WL 1152406
(July 26, 2000) (ORDER); Brittingham v. State, Del. Supr., 705 A.2d 577, 579 (1998).
8On September 7, 2001, Parker filed a “Motion-Credit for Time Served.”  This
pleading is hereby stricken as a non-conforming document.  Supr. Ct. R. 34.  
-4-
understood he was pleading guilty as an habitual offender to third degree
burglary as a lesser-included offense of second degree burglary and that he
would be serving 5 years at Level V for that conviction.  In the absence of
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Parker is bound by the
representations he made in his signed plea agreement and during his plea
colloquy.6  To the extent that Parker seeks to re-argue his previous claim that
the 5-year sentence exceeds the Truth in Sentencing guidelines or seeks to
argue that the sentence exceeds the statutory penalty, those claims are barred
as previously adjudicated.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.8  
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
        Justice