Carter v. State, 47,1990
| Decision Date | 08 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 47,1990,47,1990 |
| Parties | Sherman A. CARTER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Before CHRISTIE, Chief Justice, HORSEY and HOLLAND, Justices.
This 8th day of March, 1990, it appears from the record that:
(1) On February 20, 1990, appellee moved, pursuant to Rule 25(a), to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of appellant's brief that the appeal is without merit.
(2) The appellant, Sherman A. Carter, pled guilty to trafficking in a non-narcotic substance as a lesser included offense of trafficking in heroin. The term "trafficking in a non-narcotic substance" was used at the request of the defendant during the plea negotiation process. Carter was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to be suspended after eight years, with the first three years being mandatory.
(3) Carter then sought postconviction relief on December 23, 1987, contending that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by asking the court for more than the minimum mandatory three year sentence. The Superior Court denied Carter's motion, and this Court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. Carter v. State, Del.Supr., No. 491, 1988, Moore J. (Nov. 1, 1989) (ORDER).
(4) This appeal arises out of Carter's second pro se application for postconviction relief in Superior Court, in which the defendant contends that: 1) his guilty plea was illegal because no offense exists which is entitled "trafficking in a non-narcotic substance;" and 2) his attorney was ineffective by failing to protect his constitutional rights against entering an "illegal plea agreement." The Superior Court summarily denied the application. We agree with the Superior Court.
(5) Carter contends that he entered into an illegal plea agreement and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Carter was required to include in his first application for postconviction relief all grounds for relief which were available to him. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(b)(2). His present contentions of an illegal plea agreement and ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to the plea agreement were available and were known, or should have been known, to Carter at the time of his first motion for postconviction relief. See Robinson v. State, Del.Supr., 562 A.2d 1184, 1185 (1989). In order to raise these new issues at this stage in the proceedings, Carter is required to show that consideration of the claims is warranted in the interests of justice. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(2). Carter has failed to make this showing. Carter has also made no showing of cause for relief from his procedural default and prejudice from any claimed violation of his rights. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61(i)(3). As a result, his motion is procedurally barred.
(6) Carter's contention as to the "illegal" guilty plea also fails on the merits. Carter was indicted on charges of possession of marijuana, possession with intent to deliver heroin, and trafficking in illegal drugs (heroin). The plea agreement provided that the State would drop the charges of...
To continue reading
Request your trial