Title: Roten v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 420, 2004, 464, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BENNY R. ROTEN,
§
§
No. 464, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE.
§
in and for Sussex County
§
Cr. I.D. No. 0401005180
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: September 7, 2005
Decided: September 15, 2005
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 15  day of September, 2005, on consideration of the briefs of the parties,
th
it appears to the Court that:
1) Benny R. Roten appeals the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea.  Roten argues that the Superior Court abused its discretion
by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion.  Specifically, he
contends that there was no record support for the trial court’s conclusion that the State
would be prejudiced if the plea were withdrawn.  We find no merit to this argument
and affirm.
2
2)   Roten was charged with six offenses relating to an alleged assault on his 
girlfriend: kidnapping, attempted murder, aggravated menacing, possession of a
deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, resisting arrest, and failure to
submit to fingerprinting.  At his final case review, Roten accepted a plea bargain
under which he pled guilty to first degree assault and aggravated menacing, and the
State nolle prossed the remaining charges.  During a thorough plea colloquy, the trial
court determined that Roten fully understood the implications of his plea and that his
decision was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
3) Before sentencing, Roten filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea.  Roten
alleged, among other things, that: i) he did not fully understand the plea offer; ii) he
was under the influence of medications; and iii) he was pushed and rushed into
signing the plea agreement.  On appeal, Roten acknowledges that none of those
allegations, which are inconsistent with his sworn testimony during the plea colloquy,
forms a basis for withdrawing his guilty plea.  Instead, he argues that he had a fair and
just reason to withdraw his plea because the withdrawal would not have prejudiced
the State.  He contends that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether the State would have suffered any prejudice.
4) Because Roten did not request an evidentiary hearing, we review this claim
for plain error, which is error that is “so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to
Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986).
1
Patterson v. State, 684 A.2d 1234, 1238 (Del. 1996).
2
3
jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process.”   We find no plain error.  The
1
trial court found that granting the motion would “unduly inconvenience this Court
because this Court is overwhelmed with trials” and that it would prejudice the State
because the State would have to “relocate and re-present evidence....”  The trial court
did not have to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine that the withdrawal of the
guilty plea would cause undue inconvenience to the court.  Thus, even if the State
would have suffered no significant prejudice, the trial court acted within its discretion
in denying Roten’s motion.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice