State v. West, 1107001026

In January 2012 Christopher H. West pled guilty to one count of Robbery in the First Degree and one count of Robbery in the Second Degree, and expressly agreed he was eligible for habitual-offender sentencing based on prior convictions (Burglary 2003; Forgery 2004; Forgery (PA) 2009).
The Superior Court declared West a habitual offender and sentenced him to 28 years at Level V, suspended after 25 years; West did not appeal the plea or sentence.
West filed multiple postconviction and habeas petitions (Rule 61 motions and petitions in state and federal court); prior Rule 61 motions and related appeals were denied and affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
On June 26, 2025 West filed his fourth Rule 61 motion raising (inter alia) procedural challenges to Rule 61’s amendment, ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, lack of jurisdiction, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger undermines his habitual-offender sentence.
Rule 61 bars review of second or subsequent motions unless narrow exceptions apply; those exceptions are available only to defendants convicted after a trial, not to defendants who pled guilty.
The Commissioner recommends summary dismissal of West’s fourth Rule 61 motion because West pleaded guilty (so no exceptions apply), he stipulated to habitual status in the plea, prior adjudications found his plea valid, and Erlinger does not afford relief here.

Issue	State's Argument	West's Argument	Held
Whether a fourth Rule 61 motion may proceed	Rule 61 bars second/subsequent motions for defendants who pled guilty; exceptions are limited to trial convictions	Motion raises new law and other defects that should overcome procedural bar	Motion summarily dismissed — successive Rule 61 barred because West pled guilty and did not meet exceptions
Whether Erlinger v. United States invalidates his habitual sentence	Erlinger inapplicable: it concerns jury findings where defendant did not stipulate; West expressly stipulated to habitual status	Erlinger creates a new rule that should retroactively invalidate his habitual designation	Erlinger does not apply — West waived challenge by stipulating; no relief granted
Validity of plea and waiver of pre-plea errors	Plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; plea expressly waived challenges to habitual status	Plea/counsel ineffective; waiver not valid	Plea previously upheld by Delaware Supreme Court; claims are waived/time-barred
Whether Superior Court lacked jurisdiction	Superior Court clearly had jurisdiction over the charges; this was previously affirmed	Asserts lack of jurisdiction over disposition	Jurisdiction upheld; jurisdictional claim rejected

Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (a valid guilty plea waives pre-plea errors)
Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229 (Del. 2004) (principles governing plea waiver and collateral review)
Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (U.S. 2024) (jury unanimity required for finding that prior offenses occurred on separate occasions when sentence enhancement is contested)