Wing v. State, No. 1
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Writing for the Court | HOLLAND |
| Citation | 690 A.2d 921 |
| Parties | Benjamin WING, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted: |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | 1996,No. 1 |
Page 921
v.
STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Decided: July 22, 1996.
Opinion Issued: October 8, 1996 1.
Page 922
Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.
Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. N95-12-0008
Raymond M. Radulski, Wilmington, DE, for appellant.
Timothy J. Donovan, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, DE, for appellee.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND, and HARTNETT, JJ.
HOLLAND, Justice:
On November 30, 1995, the defendant-appellant, Benjamin Wing ("Wing"), pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to one count of trafficking in cocaine, in accordance with Superior Court Criminal Rule 11(e)(1)(C). In exchange for his agreement, the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware agreed to dismiss federal charges pending against Wing in the District Court. Furthermore, the State of Delaware agreed to recommend a three-year minimum mandatory term of incarceration.
On the same day he executed his plea agreement, Wing also executed a waiver of indictment and a Truth-in-Sentencing guilty plea form. These documents implemented the terms of his plea agreement. The Superior Court immediately sentenced Wing to a three year prison term, in accordance with his plea agreement.
Wing's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) ("Rule 26(c)"). Wing's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Wing's attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c). Wing was provided with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Wing also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Wing has raised several issues for this Court's consideration.
The State has responded to the position taken by Wing's counsel and to the points raised by Wing. The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision. This Court has concluded that motion should be granted.
Page 923
Wing's Contentions
Wing has raised four distinct issues for this Court's consideration. First, Wing contends that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he was not arrested by State authorities nor was he indicted by a State grand jury. Instead, Wing asserts that the federal court had sole jurisdiction over his charges because he was indicted by a federal grand jury. Second, Wing alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for tricking Wing into entering a guilty plea before the state court when, in fact, Wing wished to go to trial before the federal court. Third, Wing contends that his waiver of indictment was invalid because it was not made in open court. Finally, Wing contends that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over his offenses because the Superior Court accepted his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. State, I.D. No. 0202016153 (Del. Super 11/4/2003), I.D. No. 0202016153.
...U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 37. Section 4177 (b) provides, in part: In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (a) of this section: (2)a. No person shall b......
-
Woodlin v. State, ID. No. 0503004242 (Del. Super. 4/27/2006), ID. No. 0503004242.
...State, 453 A.2d 802, 803 (Del. 1982); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 8. Super. Ct. Crim. Rule 39(c). 9. Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921 (Del. 1996) citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1......
-
Hardwick v. State, No. 490, 2008.
...the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. . . ."). 4. Jones v. State, 940 A.2d 1, 9 (Del.2007). 5. Id. 6. Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996) ("This Court . . . will not hear a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal.")......
-
State v. Matthews, C. A. 1806004163
...the merits of the underlying claim for postconviction relief."). [21] See id. [22] Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). [23] See Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996). [24] See Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988). [25] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Per Strickland,......
-
Hughes v. State, I.D. No. 0202016153 (Del. Super 11/4/2003), I.D. No. 0202016153.
...U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 37. Section 4177 (b) provides, in part: In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (a) of this section: (2)a. No person shall b......
-
Woodlin v. State, ID. No. 0503004242 (Del. Super. 4/27/2006), ID. No. 0503004242.
...State, 453 A.2d 802, 803 (Del. 1982); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 8. Super. Ct. Crim. Rule 39(c). 9. Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921 (Del. 1996) citing Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1......
-
Hardwick v. State, No. 490, 2008.
...the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. . . ."). 4. Jones v. State, 940 A.2d 1, 9 (Del.2007). 5. Id. 6. Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996) ("This Court . . . will not hear a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal.")......
-
State v. Matthews, C. A. 1806004163
...the merits of the underlying claim for postconviction relief."). [21] See id. [22] Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). [23] See Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996). [24] See Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988). [25] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). Per Strickland,......