Title: Moore v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 457, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 19, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDRE MOORE,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 457, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0504021045 
§                      0505016449 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 23, 20131 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 19, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 19th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Andre Moore, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s August 6, 2012 order adopting the July 20, 2012 report of 
the Superior Court Commissioner, which recommended that Moore’s first 
motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 
61 be denied.2   We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 This appeal was stayed pending the Court’s decision in Holmes v. State, Del. Supr., No. 
350, 2012, Jacobs, J. (May 23, 2013). 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §512(b); Super. Ct. Crim. R. 62.   
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in June 2005, a grand jury 
indicted Moore on numerous charges related to several armed robberies of 
gas stations and a hotel.  In July of 2005, a grand jury indicted Moore on 
additional charges related to the armed robbery of a fast food restaurant.  On 
February 2, 2006, Moore pleaded guilty to 2 counts of Robbery in the First 
Degree, 2 counts of Robbery in the Second Degree and one count each of 
Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and Conspiracy 
in the Second Degree.  In exchange for Moore’s guilty plea, the State 
dismissed all of the remaining charges in both indictments and agreed to 
recommend no more than 14 years of Level V incarceration. 
 
(3) 
On April 7, 2006, the Superior Court sentenced Moore to a total 
period of 20 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 11 years 
for decreasing levels of supervision.  At the time of sentencing, Moore was 
serving a 15-month Level V sentence on a separate conviction of Robbery in 
the Second Degree.  Moore did not file a direct appeal from his convictions. 
 
(4) 
In lieu of a direct appeal, Moore has filed several motions, 
petitions and appeals challenging his sentences.  He filed three motions for 
modification of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, all of which were denied by 
the Superior Court.  Moore appealed the denial of his third Rule 35 motion 
 
3
to this Court, which affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.3  Moore then 
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, which was dismissed by 
Order dated April 10, 2012.4  
 
(5) 
On July 9, 2012, Moore filed his first postconviction motion 
under Rule 61.  In his motion, Moore claimed that the Superior Court 
committed an abuse of discretion by sentencing him for both first degree 
robbery and a weapon violation.  The Superior Court denied the motion, 
noting that Rule 61 does not encompass motions for sentence modification.  
This appeal followed. 
 
(6) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his first 
postconviction motion, Moore claims that his guilty plea was involuntary 
because his counsel provided ineffective assistance at the time his guilty plea 
was entered by not informing him of the possible range of his sentences.  
Moore also claims that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying 
his motion for a transcript of his sentencing hearing at State expense.   
 
(7) 
In order to demonstrate that a guilty plea was involuntary, the 
defendant must provide a transcript of the guilty plea hearing.5  In order to 
prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with a 
                                                 
3 Moore v. State, Del. Supr., No. 289, 2010, Holland, J. (Aug. 4, 2010). 
4 In re Moore, Del. Supr., No. 136, 2012, Jacobs, J. (Apr. 10, 2012). 
5 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
 
4
guilty plea, the defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable 
probability that, but for his counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded 
guilty, but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.6   
 
(8) 
Moore has failed to provide a copy of his guilty plea colloquy 
to this Court on appeal, thereby precluding his claim of error in connection 
with his guilty plea.7  Moreover, Moore’s plea agreement and Truth in 
Sentencing guilty plea form reflect that, at the time his plea was entered, he 
was well aware of the potential penalties for each of the charges against him 
and, specifically, that he was subject to a 9-year minimum mandatory 
penalty---3 years at Level V on each on each of the first degree robbery 
convictions and 3 years at Level V on the weapon conviction.  We, 
therefore, conclude that Moore’s first claim is without merit.   
 
(9) 
Moore’s second claim that the Superior Court abused its 
discretion when it denied his request for a free transcript of his sentencing 
hearing is equally unavailing.  A defendant does not have a right to a free 
transcript to pursue postconviction relief in the absence of a showing of 
good cause.8  Moore supported his request for a free transcript with his 
argument that he was sentenced improperly.  However, the Superior Court 
                                                 
6 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 60 (Del. 1988). 
7 Id. 
8 Harris v. State, Del. Supr., No. 507, 2006, Steele, C.J. (Jan. 31, 2008) (citing United 
States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1976)). 
 
5
had already ruled on several occasions that Moore’s claim was meritless.  
Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court in denying Moore’s request for a free transcript and, 
therefore, conclude that his second claim also is without merit. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice