State v. Carter
1603016304
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 5, 2017Background
- On March 1, 2016 Wilmington police responded to a shooting; surveillance footage showed Carter shooting the victim at close range. Carter was arrested March 22, 2016 while on probation.
- A grand jury charged Carter with multiple felonies including attempted first-degree murder, robbery, and weapons offenses. Carter was appointed counsel.
- On November 21, 2016 Carter pleaded guilty to Robbery First Degree, Conspiracy Second Degree, Assault First Degree, and Possession of a Firearm During Commission of a Felony; other charges were dismissed per a plea agreement.
- Sentencing occurred March 24, 2017 consistent with the plea: multi-year Level V terms with some suspensions to lower supervision levels and some terms with no probation.
- Carter filed a timely Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief (May 1, 2017) claiming (1) counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and (2) counsel was ineffective for persuading him to plead despite physical evidence of innocence.
- The Superior Court reviewed procedural bars under Rule 61, found the motion timely and reviewable, but dismissed the PCR motion on the merits as conclusory and contrary to plea-colloquy statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter's guilty plea was coerced | Carter: counsel misrepresented strength of case and coerced plea | State/Court: plea colloquy shows plea was voluntary and informed | Denied — no clear and convincing evidence of coercion; plea binding |
| Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland | Carter: counsel convinced him to plead despite physical evidence of innocence | Carter claims counsel fell below professional norms and caused prejudice | Denied — allegations conclusory, no specific facts showing deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether Rule 61 procedural bars apply | Carter: motion timely and first PCR motion | N/A (Court reviewed Rule 61) | Motion timely and not procedurally barred; merits considered |
| Whether plea-colloquy statements foreclose collateral attack | Carter: seeks to overturn plea based on after-the-fact claims | Court: statements during Rule 11 colloquy and plea form are presumed truthful | Court relied on colloquy; Carter failed to overcome the formidable barrier |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (Delaware adoption of Strickland standard)
- Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736 (Del. 1990) (postconviction relief is a collateral remedy)
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (standards for dismissing conclusory PCR claims)
- Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (plea colloquy and defendant satisfaction with counsel)