Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201

Ira Brown was arrested after police found over 900 bags of heroin at his home; on April 24, 2012 he pleaded guilty to Drug Dealing after an extensive plea colloquy in which he admitted possession and intent to sell.
The Superior Court accepted the plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Brown was sentenced to an effective 12 years incarcerated (25 years suspended after 12).
The day after the plea Brown made an oral, pro se motion to withdraw the plea; the trial court denied it without prejudice and later denied a written motion to withdraw, treating post-sentencing relief as governed by Rule 61.
Brown did not pursue a direct appeal; he filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion (raising ineffective assistance for failure to file a suppression motion). The Superior Court denied Rule 61 relief.
After Brown filed his Rule 61 appeal, a criminal investigation revealed misconduct in the OCME Controlled Substances Unit (missing/stolen drug evidence and protocol breaches), but no evidence that lab personnel planted controlled substances to falsely create positive results.
The DOJ informed Brown’s counsel that a person in the chain of custody for his case had been indicted, but stated there was no evidence the seized bags in Brown’s case lacked heroin or had been tampered with.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether newly discovered evidence of OCME misconduct entitles Brown to a new trial	OCME scandal is Brady material; nondisclosure of lab problems deprived him of evidence that could impeach chain of custody and trial fairness	Brown’s guilty plea waived right to impeachment evidence; OCME misconduct was impeachment only and did not show his actual innocence	Denied — Ruiz bars post-plea Brady claims as to impeachment material when defendant pleaded guilty knowingly and did not claim actual innocence
Whether the trial court erred by denying Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (Rule 32 vs Rule 61)	The oral pre-sentencing motion to withdraw required Rule 32 treatment; written post-sentencing motion should not have been treated as collateral under Rule 61	Claim was not raised in Rule 61 below or on direct appeal; thus it is procedurally defaulted under Rule 61(i)(3) and not preserved for review	Not reached on merits — claim is waived and procedurally barred for failure to raise timely; no cause and prejudice shown

United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (holding that the Constitution does not require disclosure of impeachment material before accepting a guilty plea)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishing government duty to disclose exculpatory evidence at trial)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and witness credibility obligations of the prosecution)
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (defendant is bound by statements made during plea colloquy)