State of Delaware v. Ayers.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE v. BRANDON A. AYERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID# 0004013377 Date Submitted: March 12, 2002 Date Decided: April 4, 2002 ORDER U PON D EFENDANT S M OTION FOR P OSTCONVICTION R ELIEF DENIED On this 4 th day of April 2002, upon consideration of the Motion for Postconviction Relief filed by the Defe ndant and the record in this case, it app ears to the C ourt that: (1) On O ctober 29, 2 001, De fendant e ntered a gu ilty plea to Posses sion with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance, Possession of a Controlled Substance within 1000 Feet of a School, Possession of a Controlled Substance within 300 Feet of a Park or Recreation Park and Possession of a Non-Narcotic Schedule I Controlled Substance. Defendant was sentenced to five years at Level V, followed by State v. Ayers ID# 0004013377 April 4, 2002 Page 2 various lev els of prob ation. This is D efendan t s first Motio n for Pos tconviction Relief in which he asserts three grounds for postconviction relief: (i) ineffective assistance of counsel; (ii) suppression of favorable evidence; and (iii) failure to be informed of Miranda rights. (2) In evalu ating a postc onviction re lief motion, th e Court m ust first ascertain if any procedural bars of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(i) apply to the case.1 If a procedural bar is found to exist, the Court should refrain from considering the merits of the individual claims.2 (3) Summ ary dismissal is pro vided for p ursuant to R ule 61(d)(4 ) "[i]f it plainly appears fr om the m otion for po stconviction relief and the record of p rior proceed ings in the case tha t the mova nt is not entitled to relief, the judg e may enter an order for its summary dismissal ..." This Court will not address claims for postconviction relief that are conclusory and unsubstantiated.3 Pursuant to Rule 61(a), a motion for postconviction relief must b e based o n "a suffic ient factual a nd legal ba sis." In addition , pursuant to Rule 61(b )(2), "[t]he m otion shall sp ecify all the grou nds for relief which ar e available to 1 See Younger v. State, Del. Supr., 580 A.2d 552, 554 (1990); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 61(i). 2 See Id. 3 See Younger., 580 A.2d at 555; State v. Conlow, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN78-090985R1, Herlihy, J. (Oct. 5, 1990) at 5; State v. Gallo, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN87-03-05890594, Gebelein, J. (Sept. 2, 1988) at 10. State v. Ayers ID# 0004013377 April 4, 2002 Page 3 movant ..., and shall be set forth in summary from the facts supporting each of the grounds th us specified ." Here, D efendan t has failed to set forth his c laims with specificity and supporting facts. (4) Defendant pled guilty to these charges, in doing so he signified that he understood the constitutional rights he was relinquishing by his plea. When Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into his plea, he waived his right to assert claims of suppression of favorable evidence and failure to be informed of Miranda rights.4 A defenda nt is bound by the statemen ts he made on the sign ed Plea Fo rm and d uring the in court colloquy unless he proves otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.5 Consequently, I find that these claims are meritless and deserve summary disposition. (5) Moreover, to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Defendant must allege by clear facts the requirements of the Strickland test. 6 Under Strickland, Defendant must show that alleged counsel s course of conduct fell below an objective stan dard of rea sonablen ess and th at such actio ns were p rejudicial. 7 It is settled 4 Hickman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 298, 1994, Veasey, C.J. (Oct. 11, 1994) (ORDER) at 3-4. 5 Hickman, at 3-4; Smith v. State, Del. Supr., No. 465, 1989, Walsh, J. (Jan. 4, 1990) (ORDER). 6 Mapp v. State, Del. Supr., No. 003, 1994, Holland, J. (Mar. 17, 1994) (ORDER). 7 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). State v. Ayers ID# 0004013377 April 4, 2002 Page 4 Delaware law that allegations that are entirely conclusory are legally insufficient to prove ineffective assistance o f counse l.8 Thus, Defendant must be able to show that defense counsel s e rror was o bjectively unrea sonable an d caused prejudice to Defend ant s trial. 9 Here, Defendant has failed to satisfy the Strickland requirement of actual prejudice as he does not su bstantiate his c laims. Def endant m erely makes c onclusory statem ents that his attorney f ailed to c ontact h im and failed to subpo ena cre dible w itnesses for his d efense . Defendant does not support these allegations. Further, he signified in the Plea Form that he wa s satisfie d with h is attorne y s repres entation of him . For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds it is plain from the Motion for Postconviction Relief and the record in this case that Defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________ ALFORD , J. ORIGINAL: PROTHONOTARY S OFFICE - CRIMINAL DIV. 8 State v. Brittingham, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN91-01-1009-R1, Barron, J. (Dec. 29, 1994). 9 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
