Title: Rhodes v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 685, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAROD RHODES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 685, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0803035910 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2015 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 21, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of July 2015, 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, Jarod Rhodes (“Rhodes”), 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 trial court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest 
on the face of Rhodes’ opening brief that his appeal is without merit.  We agree 
and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Rhodes pled guilty in September 2008 to 
multiple drug-related crimes, including Trafficking in Cocaine and Possession with 
2 
 
Intent to Deliver.  The Superior Court sentenced Rhodes to a total period of thirty-
seven years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving sixteen years in 
prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  Rhodes did not file a direct appeal.  
Instead, in July 2014, Rhodes filed a motion for postconviction relief.  He argued 
that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea based on newly discovered 
evidence of misconduct at the State agency formerly known as the Office of the 
Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”).  The Superior Court denied Rhodes’ motion 
on December 1, 2014.  This appeal followed.  
(3) 
After the Superior Court issued the decision below in Rhodes’ case, 
this Court issued an opinion in January 2015 in the case of Brown v. State.1  In 
Brown, among other things, we rejected the defendant’s postconviction claim that 
he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because of newly discovered evidence 
of a criminal investigation into misconduct at the OCME.  We concluded that 
evidence of the OCME investigation was impeachment evidence only and that 
Brown was not entitled to disclosure of such impeachment evidence before 
entering his plea agreement.2  In the context of that case, we held that Brown’s 
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea waived any right he had to test the 
                                                 
1 Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201 (Del. 2015). 
2 Id. at 1206. 
3 
 
strength of the State’s evidence against him at trial, including the chain of custody 
of the drug evidence.3 
 (4) 
Our decision in Brown v. State is controlling here.4  In this case, the 
Superior Court ordered preparation of the transcript of Rhodes’ guilty plea before 
ruling on Rhodes’ motion for postconviction relief.  Upon review of that colloquy, 
the Superior Court concluded that Rhodes had entered his guilty plea knowingly, 
intelligently, and voluntarily.  We agree.  Rhodes is thus bound by the statements 
he made to the Superior Court before his plea was accepted, including his 
statement that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty of the crimes 
charged.5  By entering a valid guilty plea and knowingly waiving his trial rights, 
Rhodes is precluded from reopening his case now to raise a claim involving 
impeachment evidence that would have been relevant only at a trial.6   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
3 Id. at 1205-06. 
4 To the extent Rhodes’ opening brief raises a due process claim challenging a 2014 amendment 
to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, Rhodes failed to raise that claim in the Superior Court in the 
first instance.  Accordingly, under Supreme Court Rule 8, we will not consider it for the first 
time on appeal. 
5 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
6 Brown v. State, 108 A.3d at 1206.