State v. Carter
0810013184
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Jermaine Carter was indicted (Oct 2008) for multiple offenses including first‑degree rape and robbery; he pled guilty Dec 18, 2009 and, after mental‑health evaluation, changed plea to guilty but mentally ill; sentenced June 4, 2010 to life plus 45 years.
- Carter did not file a direct appeal and filed a pro se Rule 61 postconviction motion on Oct 18, 2013 (and multiple subsequent pro se amendments), raising eight claims largely alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, involuntary plea, illegal search/seizure, malicious prosecution, and sentencing errors.
- Trial counsel submitted affidavits denying ineffective assistance: he says he provided discovery as received, discussed plea and consequences with Carter, and Carter never requested an appeal; counsel also concluded evidence (victim IDs, DNA, confession) was overwhelming.
- The State argued many claims were untimely or procedurally barred and that ineffective‑assistance allegations were conclusory and meritless.
- The Superior Court found Carter’s Rule 61 motion untimely under Rule 61(i)(1) (filed more than one year after conviction became final), found no basis to invoke exceptions, summarily dismissed the motion, and granted current counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carter) | Defendant's Argument (State / Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance—plea communication | Counsel mailed plea offer to parents; acceptance came from father, not Carter; counsel’s secretary accepted plea — undermining voluntariness | Counsel and record show multiple in‑person meetings, Carter personally stated plea was voluntary at colloquy; no prejudice shown | Denied — no prejudice; plea knowingly and voluntarily entered |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to file appeal | Counsel failed to file notice of appeal after sentencing | Counsel: Carter never instructed counsel to appeal; no arguable appellate issues shown | Denied — conclusory; no prejudice or identified meritorious grounds |
| Ineffective assistance—failure to provide discovery / investigate evidence | Counsel failed to give Rule 16 materials and failed to investigate weak evidence (DNA, victim statements inconsistent) | Counsel avers he provided discovery as received and investigated; evidence (DNA, IDs, confession) was strong | Denied — Carter did not show what favorable evidence would have been produced or that he would have gone to trial |
| Voluntariness / sufficiency of plea colloquy | Plea was not knowingly/voluntarily accepted (generally asserted) | Record shows full Rule 11 colloquy; Carter responded on the record that he understood rights and consequences | Denied — plea colloquy proper; plea voluntary |
| Illegal sentencing / victim impact | Sentencing illegal because investigative services failed to obtain victim impact statement | Record contains presentence report with two victim impact statements and an additional victim letter considered at sentencing | Denied — victim impact statements were considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective‑assistance standard applied to guilty pleas)
- McCann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (counsel competence standard referenced for plea advice)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (challenge to voluntary plea limited where plea foreclosed trial)
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (postconviction claim standards; conclusory allegations insufficient)