Title: Odom v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 157, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2001

1Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALEXANDER ODOM,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 157, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  Cr.A. No. IK99-09-0494 R1
§
§
Submitted: September 20, 2001
  Decided:   October 31, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 31st day of October 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Alexander Odom, filed an appeal from
the March 23, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying Odom’s motion for
postconviction relief.1  The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the
judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face
2Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
3Pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(e) (1) (C).
-2-
of Odom’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  We agree and
AFFIRM.
(2)
In September 1999, Odom was indicted on charges of Delivery
of Cocaine and Delivery of a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance
Within 1,000 Feet of a School.  In January 2000, Odom pleaded guilty3 to the
first charge and the State dismissed the second charge.  In accordance with the
plea agreement, Odom was sentenced to 20 years at Level V, to be suspended
for the minimum mandatory sentence of 15 years, followed by probation.
Odom did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence. 
(3)
In this appeal, Odom claims that: a) the Superior Court abused
its discretion during the plea colloquy by failing to inquire into the reasons he
was dissatisfied with his attorney; b) his attorney provided ineffective
assistance by not questioning conflicts in the police and laboratory reports; and
c) the actions of the Superior Court and his attorney violated his due process
rights.  
(4)
Odom’s claim that the Superior Court abused its discretion by not
inquiring into the reasons for his dissatisfaction with his attorney is
4Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3).
5Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i) (3) (A) and (B).
-3-
procedurally barred because it was not asserted in the proceedings leading to
the judgment of conviction4 and Odom has failed to present any evidence
showing cause for relief or prejudice from a violation of his rights.5  The
claim is without a factual basis in any case.  The transcript of the plea
colloquy reflects clearly that the Superior Court judge inquired specifically
into Odom’s statement on the guilty plea form that he was not satisfied with
his attorney’s representation and that his attorney had not advised him of his
rights.  After the State’s proffer of the considerable evidence against him and
a careful and lengthy discussion with the Superior Court judge, Odom stated
unequivocally that he did not want to go to trial and believed the plea
agreement was the best result he could obtain under the circumstances.      
(5)
Odom’s claim that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by
failing to question inconsistencies in the police and laboratory reports is also
without merit.  There is no support in the record for a claim that, but for his
counsel’s alleged errors, Odom would not have pleaded guilty and would have
6Somerville v. State, Del. Supr., 703 A.2d 629, 631 (1997).
7Downer v. State, Del. Supr., 543 A.2d 309, 311-12 (1988).
-4-
insisted on going to trial.6  Moreover, the transcript of the plea colloquy
reflects clearly that Odom entered his guilty plea freely and voluntarily.
Odom’s voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any alleged defects or
errors occurring prior to the entry of the plea.7  
(6)
Odom’s claim of a due process violation is based upon his
previous claims of defects in the plea colloquy and ineffective assistance of
counsel.  Because there is no basis for those claims, there is also no basis for
Odom’s claim of a due process violation.
(7)
It is manifest on the face of Odom’s opening brief that this appeal
is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated,
clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
-5-
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:                          
                                                       s/Joseph T. Walsh
     Justice