State v. Hollis
1209016864
| Del. Super. Ct. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Aaron Hollis was arrested Sept. 27, 2012 and indicted on multiple felonies related to a large-scale drug operation; he pled guilty Oct. 21, 2013 to racketeering, drug dealing, and second-degree conspiracy.
- The State dismissed multiple other felony charges as part of the plea; the plea agreement included a recommendation for open sentencing.
- Sentencing (effective Apr. 29, 2013) imposed term-of-years sentences within statutory limits (including Level V terms with partial suspensions to Level III).
- Hollis filed a Rule 61 postconviction relief (PCR) motion asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) misrepresenting the plea and coercing the plea, (2) failing to ensure the State honored its plea offer, and (3) failing to challenge the charges/evidence.
- The Superior Court applied Strickland and Rule 61 procedural bars, found Hollis’s plea colloquy and plea form statements presumption-true, determined the record showed the plea and sentencing were within the agreed terms and statutory limits, and concluded constructive possession was supportable by the record.
- The court summarily dismissed the PCR motion and denied appointment of postconviction counsel under Rule 61(e)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hollis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for misrepresenting plea consequences and coercing a guilty plea | The plea colloquy and plea form show Hollis knowingly, voluntarily accepted the plea; no misrepresentation or coercion shown. | Counsel misled/coerced Hollis about sentence severity and the State later failed to honor the plea. | Denied — court found plea was voluntary, statements at colloquy presumptively true; no clear-and-convincing evidence of coercion or misrepresentation. |
| Whether counsel failed to ensure the State honored the negotiated plea | The plea agreement dismissed other charges and recommended open sentencing; the record shows the State’s terms were effectuated. | The State did not honor the negotiated agreement. | Denied — record shows State dismissed charges per the agreement and sentencing was within statutory and agreed parameters. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging sufficiency of evidence for drug dealing (possession) | The State could prove constructive possession via links to the criminal operation; record supported constructive possession. | No drugs were found on Hollis; counsel should have challenged the charges. | Denied — court found sufficient record support for constructive possession and no counsel deficiency shown under Strickland. |
| Whether postconviction counsel should be appointed under Rule 61(e)(2) | Hollis’s motion did not present a substantial ineffective-assistance claim nor exceptional circumstances warranting counsel. | Requests appointment of counsel to pursue PCR claims. | Denied — motion failed Rule 61(e)(2) requirements (no substantial claim, no exceptional circumstances). |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53 (Del. 1988) (Delaware adoption of Strickland standard)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (a voluntary plea waives prior non-jurisdictional defects)
- Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (plea colloquy statements are presumptively truthful)
- Hoey v. State, 689 A.2d 1177 (Del. 1997) (elements and proof of constructive possession)