Supreme Court of Delaware

In an appeal seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. Rule 61 and correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Crim. Rule 35(a), denial of Rule 61 and Rule 35(a) claims is affirmed over defendant's contention that: 1) the Superior Court improperly ruled his challenge to the guilty plea as procedurally defaulted and such default could not be overcome in the absence of any evidence that defendant was prejudiced by error committed at the plea colloquy; 2) the Superior court improperly ruled his double jeopardy claim as procedurally defaulted and waived at the time the guilty plea was entered; 3) the Superior Court improperly rejected his claim of an Apprendi violation on grounds of untimeliness and lacking merit; and 4) the Superior Court improperly ruled his claims of prosecutorial breach of the plea agreement as procedurally defaulted and meritless.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/25/2008
• Published 01/25/2008

Judges

• HOLLAND, Justice., Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.

Court

• Supreme Court of Delaware

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• John H. Benge, Jr., pro se.


• For Appellees:
  
• Loren C. Meyers, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee.