Title: Duffy v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 135, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 12, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES DUFFY,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 135, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 84006719DI 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: August 3, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 12, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of September 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Charles Duffy, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s February 23, 2012 order denying his motion for 
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.1  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in December 1984, Duffy 
was indicted on charges of Rape in the First Degree, Burglary in the First 
Degree, two counts of Burglary in the Second Degree, Attempted Burglary 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court also denied the motion sua sponte pursuant to Rule 35(a). 
 
2
in the Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
Commission of a Felony, Theft, Offensive Touching, Criminal Mischief and 
Disorderly Conduct.  On July 8, 1985, Duffy entered a Robinson plea to one 
count of Rape in the First Degree.2  On September 13, 1985, Duffy was 
sentenced to life in prison.3   
 
(3) 
Over the years, Duffy has filed a number of motions in the 
Superior Court alleging that his plea was involuntary and that the attorney 
who represented him in connection with his plea rendered ineffective 
assistance.  In 1986, Duffy appealed the Superior Court’s denial of his 
motion for correction of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a) to this Court.  We 
affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, stating that Duffy’s claim of an 
involuntary plea was meritless as reflected in the plea colloquy and his 
signed plea agreement.4  Duffy’s subsequent postconviction motions were 
denied by the Superior Court as procedurally barred under Rule 61.  In those 
instances where Duffy appealed from the Superior Court’s judgment, this 
Court affirmed.5  
                                                 
2 Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279 (Del. 1972) (permitting the acceptance of a guilty plea 
in the absence of an admission of guilt). 
3 The record in this case contains a copy of the sentencing order, but does not contain a 
transcription of the sentencing hearing. 
4 Duffy v. State, 1986 WL 17363 (Del. July 31, 1986). 
5 Duffy v. State, 1987 WL 31556 (Del. Dec. 21, 1987); Duffy v. State, 1988 WL 117521 
(Del. Oct. 28, 1988).   
 
3
 
(4) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his latest 
postconviction motion, Duffy claims that the Superior Court improperly 
denied his motion as time-barred and procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 
61.  He asserts that the “miscarriage of justice” exception of Rule 61(i) (5) 
applies to his claims due to a) his involuntary plea; b) his invalid plea 
agreement; and c) the ineffective assistance of his counsel.  Duffy further 
argues that the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Lafler 
v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 
(2012) create a newly-recognized, retroactively applicable right, rendering 
the time bar of Rule 61(i) (1) inapplicable to his claims.6  To the extent that 
Duffy fails to pursue claims in this appeal that he asserted in the Superior 
Court, all such claims are deemed to be waived and will not be addressed by 
this Court.7    
 
(5) 
Duffy’s first claim is that his plea was involuntary because both 
the judge and his counsel led him to believe that his sentence would be for 
45 years at Level V, not for the remainder of his natural life.8  As a related 
claim, Duffy also claims that his plea agreement is invalid due to the 
                                                 
6 Rule 61(i) (1) (A motion for postconviction relief that asserts a “retroactively applicable 
right”  is not time-barred if it is filed within one year after such right is “newly 
recognized” by the Delaware Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court). 
7 Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).  In his motion filed in the Superior 
Court, Duffy claimed that the Superior Court judge did not adequately explain the 
elements of the crime of Rape. 
8 We note that Duffy has not yet served 45 years on his Level V sentence. 
 
4
“confusion” surrounding his sentence.  The transcript of Duffy’s July 8, 
1985 plea hearing reflects that, during the plea colloquy, Duffy’s counsel 
referred to a life term as equivalent to imprisonment for 45 years.  When the 
Superior Court judge asked Duffy, “What is the sentence that must be 
imposed by the Court?” Duffy responded, “Forty-five.”  The judge, 
attempting to clarify Duffy’s understanding of the parameters of his 
sentence, then stated, “Actually deemed by law to be a forty-five year 
sentence, but is a sentence for the balance of your natural life.  For parole 
purposes and other purposes, excluding the twenty year business, it is a life 
sentence and to be deemed to be a forty-five year sentence.”  
 
(6) 
The judge’s explanation, while somewhat inartfully stated, 
nevertheless properly reflected the state of the law prior to the enactment of 
the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989 (“TIS”).9  Specifically, the sentence of a 
defendant convicted of Rape in the First Degree was subject to §4346, the 
parole eligibility statute, which provided that the defendant would be 
imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life and would be eligible for 
parole only after 45 years spent in prison.10  This Court has consistently so 
ruled in a series of cases beginning with Evans v. State, 872 A.2d 539, 557-
                                                 
9 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, Chap. 42. 
10 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4346(c).   
 
5
58 (Del. 2005).11  The record further reflects that Duffy’s plea agreement 
and the sentencing order made no mention of a 45-year period and clearly 
stated that Duffy’s sentence was imprisonment for the remainder of his 
natural life.  For all of the above reasons, we conclude that Duffy’s claims 
that his plea was involuntary, his plea agreement is invalid and that his 
involuntary plea represents a “miscarriage of justice” for purposes of Rule 
61(i) (5) are without merit.12 
 
(7) 
Duffy’s second claim is that his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance in connection with his plea hearing because he did not properly 
inform Duffy that his sentence was for the remainder of his natural life.  In 
order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel within the 
context of a voluntary plea such as Duffy’s, a defendant must demonstrate 
that, but for error on the part of his counsel, he would not have entered a 
plea, but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.13  Even assuming error 
on the part of Duffy’s counsel, there was no prejudice to Duffy.  If Duffy 
                                                 
11 Evans held that a pre-TIS life sentence for first degree rape was a sentence for the 
balance of the defendant’s natural life and not for 45 years.  See also Nash v. State, Del. 
Supr., No. 75, 2005, Berger, J. (Oct. 17, 2005); Weaver v. State, Del. Supr., No. 58, 2006, 
Berger, J. (July 10, 2006); Ricketts v. State, Del. Supr., No. 624, 2007, Holland, J. (Mar. 
17, 2008); Jackson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 255, 2008, Ridgely, J. (Nov. 12, 2008). 
12 We disagree with the Superior Court’s statement below that Duffy “clearly was told” 
that he would be released after 45 years.  Then, as now, an inmate who is serving a pre-
TIS sentence and is eligible for parole may be released only if the Board of Parole so 
decides.  Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4347(c).   
13 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 60 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 
(1985)). 
 
6
had gone to trial and been convicted only of rape, the record reflects that he 
faced habitual offender status under §4214(b) and a sentence of life in prison 
without the possibility of parole on that conviction alone.14  The record 
reflects that the State’s case was strong, the risks of proceeding to trial were 
significant and that Duffy’s decision to accept the plea provided a benefit to 
him.  We, therefore, conclude that Duffy’s claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel and his claim that his counsel’s ineffective assistance represents a 
“miscarriage of justice” for purposes of Rule 61(i) (5) are without merit. 
 
(8) 
Duffy, finally, contends that the recent United States Supreme 
Court cases of Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye create a newly-
recognized, retroactively applicable right regarding counsel’s performance 
in communicating plea offers from the State, rendering Rule 61(i) (1)’s time 
bar inapplicable to his claims.  Because that issue was not presented to the 
Superior Court in the first instance, it is not ripe for review by this Court and 
we, therefore, decline to consider it.15   
                                                 
14 The record reflects that Duffy had previously been convicted in Pennsylvania of Rape, 
Attempted Rape and Robbery, crimes for which he spent 15 years in prison, and had 
previously been convicted in Delaware of Assault and Battery, a crime for which he spent 
7 years in prison. 
15 Supr. Ct. R. 8.  The United States Supreme Court cases were decided after the Superior 
Court’s decision in Duffy’s case was issued. 
 
7
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
                                                 
16 To the extent Duffy argues that the Superior Court improperly denied his claims under 
Rule 35(a), we also affirm that portion of the Superior Court’s decision below.  The 
record reflects that Duffy’s sentence was neither illegal nor imposed in an illegal manner.  
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842-43 (Del. 1992).