Title: Scott v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 41, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT SCOTT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 41, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN00-05-0002 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 15, 2003 
Decided:  October 21, 2003 
 
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of October 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Robert Scott, filed an appeal from the  
Superior Court’s January 2, 2003 order denying his motion for postconviction 
relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In April 2000, Scott was indicted on charges of Aggravated 
Menacing, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 
Offensive Touching, and Criminal Mischief.  On November 20, 2001, the Superior 
Court dismissed the charges against Scott but then, on November 27, 2001, vacated 
 
2
the order of dismissal and ordered the case to be scheduled for trial.1  On April 2, 
2002, the day of trial, Scott pleaded guilty to the sole charge of Aggravated 
Menacing and the State dismissed the remaining charges.  He was sentenced to 2 
years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 15 months for 9 months of 
decreasing levels of probation.  Scott did not file a direct appeal from his 
conviction and sentence. 
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Scott claims that: a) his guilty plea was coerced; b) the 
State did not fulfill its promise of a probationary sentence; c) the Superior Court 
violated double jeopardy by vacating its order of dismissal and scheduling trial; 
and d) his counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the guilty 
plea proceedings.  
 
(4) 
Scott’s first claim of a coerced guilty plea is refuted by the record.  
The transcript of the guilty plea colloquy clearly reflects that Scott understood the 
nature of the plea and its consequences, was satisfied with the representation 
provided by his counsel and knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered the 
plea.  When asked by the judge if he understood he could “receive up to 5 years 
incarceration for that offense,” Scott answered, “Yes, sir.”  Absent clear and 
                                                          
 
1The transcript of the office conference held that date reflects that the State’s case against Scott 
was mistakenly dismissed because it appeared that the victim was not present for trial.  In fact, 
the victim was present at the call of the trial calendar and, therefore, the case could have 
proceeded to trial that day.   
 
3
convincing evidence to the contrary, Scott is bound by the representations he made 
at the time the plea was entered.2   
 
(5) 
Equally without merit is Scott’s second claim that the State failed to 
fulfill its promise that he would be sentenced to probation.  There is no evidence in 
the record that the State made any promise to Scott with respect to his sentence.  In 
fact, when asked by the judge if “anybody promised you what the sentence of the 
Court was going to be,” Scott replied, “No.”  
 
(6) 
Scott’s third claim of a double jeopardy violation was waived at the 
time of his voluntary guilty plea.3  The claim of a double jeopardy violation is 
without merit in any case.  In a criminal proceeding, jeopardy does not attach until 
the jury has been empaneled and sworn or, in a non-jury trial, when the first 
witness has been sworn.4  Because jeopardy had not yet attached when the Superior 
Court vacated its order of dismissal and scheduled Scott’s case for trial, Scott’s 
claim of a double jeopardy violation must fail.  
 
(7) 
Scott’s final claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is also 
meritless.  In order to prevail on his claim that his counsel was ineffective in 
connection with the entry of his guilty plea, Scott must show that, but for his 
                                                          
 
2Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
3Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 311-12 (Del. 1988) (A voluntary guilty plea waives a claim of 
error occurring prior to the entry of the plea). 
4Tarr v. State, 486 A.2d 672, 674 (Del. 1984). 
 
4
counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have 
insisted on proceeding to trial.5  There is no evidence that any action on the part of 
counsel during the guilty plea proceedings resulted in prejudice to Scott.  In fact, 
Scott’s plea of guilty to aggravated menacing provided him with a substantial 
benefit, since three additional charges, two of them serious felonies, were 
dismissed.6  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice    
                                                          
 
5Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997). 
6Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988).