Court Opinion

ID: 9931466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 02:02:21.218996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:57.712925
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,                           )
                                             )
       v.                                    )       ID No. 2204011164
                                             )
HASSAN-HASS EL-ABBADI,                       )
                                             )
                      Defendant.             )
                                             )

                           Date Submitted: November 27, 2023
                            Date Decided: February 8, 2024

                                            ORDER

       Upon consideration of Defendant Hassan-Hass El-Abbadi’s (“El-Abbadi”)

Pro Se Motion for Postconviction Relief (“Rule 61 Motion”),1 Superior Court

Criminal Rule 61, statutory and decisional law, and the record, IT APPEARS

THAT:

       (1)     On June 5, 2023, El-Abbadi pled guilty to Burglary Second Degree

(PN23-02-1849) and Stalking (IN23-02-1848) in the case ending in 1164 (the “A

Case”); Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions (IN23-02-1908) in Case No.

2208009161 (the “B Case”); and Non-Compliance with Bond Conditions (IN22-10-

0295) in Case No. 2207015239 (the “C Case”).2

       (2)     On October 20, 2023, El-Abbadi was sentenced in all three cases.3

1
  D.I. 25A (hereinafter “Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief”).
2
  D.I. 20A, D.I. 5B, D.I. 4C.
3
  D.I. 22A, D.I. 7B, D.I. 6C.
         (3)   El-Abbadi’s sentence in the A case is as follows: for Burglary Second

Degree, 8 years at Level V suspended after 2 years, for 6 months Level IV DOC

Discretion, followed by 6 months Level III GPS, followed by 12 months at Level

III; and for Stalking, 3 years at Level V suspended after 2 years, for 1 year at Level

III.4

         (4)   El-Abbadi’s sentence in the B Case is as follows: for Non-Compliance

with Bond Conditions, 5 years at Level V suspended after 6 months, for 1 year at

Level III.5

         (5)   El-Abbadi’s sentence in the C Case is as follows: for Non-Compliance

with Bond Conditions, 5 years at Level V suspended after 6 months, for 1 year at

Level III.6

         (6)   In total, El-Abbadi was sentenced to 5 years of unsuspended Level V

time.7

         (7)   El-Abbadi did not file a direct appeal.

         (8)   On November 27, 2023, El-Abbadi filed the instant Rule 61 Motion.8

4
  D.I. 22A. El-Abbadi’s probation is to run concurrently. Id.
5
  D.I. 7B. El-Abbadi’s probation is to run concurrently with the A Case, and he is ordered to pay
a fine of $1,000.00 plus all surcharges and fees. Id.
6
  D.I. 6C. El-Abbadi’s probation is to run concurrently with the B Case, and he is ordered to pay
a fine of $1,000.00 plus all surcharges and fees. Id.
7
  D.I. 22A, D.I. 7B, D.I. 6C.
8
  Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief. El-Abbadi filed a pro se motion for modification of
sentence on the same day. D.I. 26A. The Court will address El-Abbadi’s motion for modification
of sentence separately.
                                               2
His stated grounds for relief are: “unfulfilled plea [sic] agreement”; “first time felony

[sic]” and that he is a “care taker and father.”9 Pursuant to Rule 61 the Court will

only address El-Abbadi’s argument of an unfulfilled plea agreement.10

       (9)     Before considering the merits of any postconviction relief motion, the

Court must first consider whether any procedural bars exist.11

       (10) This is El-Abbadi’s first Rule 61 Motion, and it is timely;12 however, it

is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 61(i)(3). Rule 61(i)(3) states any grounds

for relief not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction are

barred unless a movant demonstrates: “[c]ause for relief from the procedural default”

and “[p]rejudice from violation of the movant’s rights.”13

       (11) El-Abbadi argues there was an “unfulfilled plea [sic] agreement,”14 and

in support of his claim he argues “the plea was 0-4” and that he was sentenced to

five years.15 El-Abbadi failed to raise this claim during the plea colloquy, at

sentencing, or on direct appeal, and therefore, the claim is barred unless El-Abbadi

9
  Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief
10
   See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1) (stating Rule 61 motions are reserved for claims asserting
“the court lacked jurisdiction or any other ground that is a sufficient factual and legal basis for a
collateral attack upon a criminal conviction.”).
11
   Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990).
12
   If a defendant does not file a direct appeal, the conviction is deemed final 30 days after
sentencing. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1). El-Abbadi was sentenced on October 20, 2023,
because he did not file a direct appeal, his conviction became final on November 19, 2023. The
instant Rule 61 Motion was filed on November 27, 2023. Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief.
13
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3)(A)-(B).
14
   Def.’s Mot. for Postconviction Relief
15
   Id.
                                                  3
is able to demonstrate a cause for relief from the default, and prejudice. 16 Because

El-Abbadi has not argued cause for his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal, nor

has he argued he was prejudiced, his Motion is procedurally barred pursuant to Rule

61(i)(3).17

       (12) A movant can overcome a procedural bar to relief by meeting the

requirements set forth in Rule 61(i)(5). Rule 61(i)(5) is reserved for claims asserting

the court lacked jurisdiction or claims that satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule

61(d)(2)(i)-(ii).18

       (13) El-Abbadi’s Rule 61 Motion is an attempt to attack his sentence, which

he has already done by filing a Rule 35(b).19                 Rule 61 states postconviction

challenges to non-capital sentences are not recognized.20 Further, pursuant to Rule

11(c), the Court addressed El-Abbadi personally in open court prior to his

sentencing.21 The Court determined El-Abbadi understood the nature of the charges

16
   See State v. Davis, 2003 WL 1344564, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 14, 2003).
17
   See Davis, 2003 WL 1344564, at *2; State v. Windell, 2022 WL 1261832, at *2 (Del. Super.
April 28, 2022) (stating “Rule 61(i)(3) bars claims that were not raised in the proceedings unless
Movant can establish cause for failing to timely raise the claim, and actual prejudice from failing
to raise the claim.”).
18
   Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). Requiring a showing that “new evidence exists that creates a strong
inference that the movant is actually innocent” or (ii) “a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the United States Supreme Court or the Delaware
Supreme Court, applies to the movant’s case and renders the conviction or death sentence invalid.”
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).
19
   D.I. 26A.
20
   See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(1); Windell, 2022 WL 1261832, at *3 (stating “[t]he Delaware
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that defendants cannot use Rule 61 postconviction proceedings
to challenge non-capital sentences.”).
21
   D.I. 20A. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 11(c) states:
                                                 4
to which the plea was offered, including the mandatory minimum and maximum

penalties provided by law.          In addition, as expressly stated on the Truth-in-

Sentencing Guilty Plea Form (“TIS Form”) that El-Abbadi signed, El-Abbadi knew

that as a result of his guilty plea he could be sentenced to a maximum of 21 years at

Level V.22 In response to the question: “Has anyone promised you what your

sentence will be?,” El-Abbadi checked the “No” box.23 When the Court asked if

anyone had promised him what his sentence would be, he responded in the negative.

El-Abbadi is bound by his answers during the colloquy and his representations on

the TIS Form,24 and he has not asserted actual innocence or that a new rule of

constitutional law applies to him. Consequently, the Court finds El-Abbadi has not

satisfied the requirements of Rule 61(i)(5), and his Rule 61 Motion is procedurally

         Before accepting a plea of guilty . . . the court must address the defendant
         personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the
         defendant understands, the following:
         (1) The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum
         penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by
         law.
22
   D.I. 20A. By statute and as listed on the TIS Form, El-Abbadi could be sentenced to a range of
6 months to 3 years at Level V for Stalking; 0 to 8 years at Level V for Burglary Second; and 0 to
5 years at Level V for each count of Non-Compliance with Bond. D.I. 20A, D.I. 5B, D.I. 4C. See
11 Del. C. § 1312(c) (classifying Stalking as a Class F Felony); see also 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(6)
(allowing for a maximum of 3 years to be served at Level V for a Class F Felony). See 11 Del. C.
§ 825 (classifying Burglary Second Degree as a Class D Felony); see also 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(4)
(allowing for a maximum of 8 years to be served at Level V for a Class D Felony). See 11 Del. C.
§ 2113(c) (allowing for a maximum of 5 years at Level V, or a fine of $5,000, or both, for not
complying with bond conditions).
23
   Id. The form additionally asked if all of El-Abbadi’s answers were truthful and if he read and
understood all the information on the form, to which he responded in the affirmative and signed.
Id.
24
   Colburn v. State, 128 A.3d 1172, 2016 WL 5845778, at *2 (Del. 2016) (TABLE).
                                                5
barred pursuant to Rule 61(1)(3).

       NOW, WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that El-Abbadi’s

Motion for Postconviction Relief is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. 25

                                                     /s/ Jan R. Jurden
                                               Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc:    Brianna M. Mills, DAG
       Hassan-Hass El-Abbadi (SBI #00724418)

25
  See Rule 61(d)(i)(5) (stating “if it plainly appears from the motion for postconviction relief
and the record of prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief, the judge
may enter an order for its summary dismissal and cause the movant to be notified.”).
                                                  6