Mitchell v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FREDERICK H. MITCHELL, §
§ No. 195, 2016
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 1408007610
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 1, 2016
Decided: August 4, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 4th day of August 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court
that:
(1) The appellant, Frederick Mitchell, filed this appeal from the Superior
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief. The State has filed a
motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on
the face of Mitchell’s opening brief that his appeal is without merit. We agree and
affirm.
(2) Mitchell pled guilty to Aggravated Possession of Heroin and
Conspiracy in the Second Degree on January 21, 2015. On March 27, 2015, the
Superior Court sentenced him to a total period of seventeen years at Level V
incarceration, to be suspended after serving eight years in prison for a period of
probation. We affirmed Mitchell’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal.1
Mitchell filed his first motion for postconviction relief in January 2016, which the
Superior Court denied.2 This appeal followed.
(3) Mitchell enumerates two arguments in his opening brief on appeal.
Although it is not entirely clear, he appears to argue that his guilty plea was not
knowingly and intelligently made because his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to obtain forensic test results on the seized drugs before recommending that
Mitchell plead guilty. Mitchell also seems to argue that the Superior Court
sentenced him with a closed mind because it did not have any forensic test results
before imposing sentence.
(4) With respect to Mitchell’s claim that the Superior Court sentenced
him with a closed mind, we note that such sentencing claims cannot be properly
raised in a postconviction motion filed under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. 3
Moreover, even if this claim could have been properly raised in a Rule 61 motion,
1
Mitchell v. State, 2015 WL 7575022 (Del. Nov. 24, 2015).
2
State v. Mitchell, 2016 WL 1621580 (Del. Super. Mar. 22, 2016).
3
Jones v. State, 2016 WL 2929109, *2 (Del. May 16, 2016) (holding that Rule 61 establishes the
procedure for setting aside a conviction or sentence of death only and that any other sentencing
issues must be raised in a Rule 35 motion).
2
it would be procedurally barred as previously adjudicated4 because this Court, on
direct appeal, previously rejected Mitchell’s claim that the Superior Court judge
sentenced him with a closed mind.5
(5) Mitchell’s other argument is that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to obtain a forensic analysis of the seized drugs and that this failure led to
Mitchell’s “coerced” plea. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, a defendant must satisfy the familiar Strickland test. That is, a defendant
must first show that “his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense.”6 In the context of a guilty plea, to establish
prejudice the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for his
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the defendant would not have pled guilty but
would have insisted on going to trial.7 A defendant must make concrete allegations
of cause and actual prejudice to substantiate a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel or else risk summary dismissal.8
(6) In this case, Mitchell fails to demonstrate how forensic testing of the
drugs would have led to a different result in his case. He does not allege, let alone
4
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(4) (2016).
5
See Mitchell v. State, 2015 WL 7575022, *2 (Del. Nov. 24, 2015).
6
Neal v. State, 80 A.3d 935, 941-42 (Del. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).
7
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 631 (Del. 1997).
8
Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552, 556 (Del. 1990).
3
establish, that forensic testing would have revealed the drugs to be anything but
heroin, which he admitted possessing.9 Mitchell stated under oath at his plea
colloquy that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. He indicated that
he fully understood the charges against him and that he understood the
consequences of pleading guilty. He stated that he was pleading guilty because he
was, in fact, guilty of the charged offenses. He also stated, among other things,
that no one had threatened him or coerced him into pleading guilty. In the absence
of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Mitchell is bound by these
statements.10 We thus reject his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to
his counsel’s ineffectiveness.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
9
Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1202 (Del. 2015).
10
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d at 632.
4