State of Delaware v. Cochran.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FRED S. SILVERMAN NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0669 JUDGE September 7, 2011 Kathryn van Amerongen, Esquire Office of the Public Defender Carvel State Office Building 820 North French Street, 3rd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: State v. Ronald J. Cochran ID # 1103003845 Upon Defendant s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea DENIED, without prejudice. Dear Ms. van Amerongen: Defendant s motion is fatally conclusory. The motion does not explain how it is that Defendant s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Thus, the motion must be denied. As the State reminds us by citing State v. Friend,1 the court takes guilty pleas seriously. As to that, the court specifically told Mr. Cochran before it accepted 1 1994 WL 234120, at *1-2 (Del. Supr. Ct. May 12, 1994). ( The Court considers five factors to remove a guilty plea: (1) Was there a procedural defect in taking the plea; (2) Did the defendant knowingly and voluntarily consent to the plea agreement; (3) Does the defendant presently have a basis to assert legal innocence; (4) Did the defendant have adequate legal counsel throughout the proceedings; and (5) Does granting the motion prejudice the State or unduly convenience the Court. ) Kathryn van Amerongen, Assistant Public Defender State v. Ronald J. Cochran ID # 1103003845 Letter/Order September 7, 2011 Page 2 his plea that once the plea is accepted, it will be almost impossible for him to back of out of it. And, Mr. Cochran told the court that he understood. Moreover, the court recalls that the plea colloquy on June 21, 2011 was thorough. The court reviewed the rights that Defendant was giving up, orally and in writing. The court also reviewed the penalties with Defendant, again, orally and in writing. Mr. Cochran told the court repeatedly that he was, in fact, guilty of the crimes to which he was pleading guilty. He told the court, orally and in writing, that the plea was knowing voluntary and intelligent. He also told the court, orally and in writing, that he was satisfied with his lawyer s work. The court also recalls being told, before he decided to plea guilty, Defendant consulted with a family member, at his request. Perhaps more importantly, after the court reviewed the crimes, the rights Defendant was giving up and the possible penalties, the court specifically cautioned Defendant: This a serious thing, as I am sure that you are well aware, Mr. Cochran. But to be safe, if there is something on your mind about this, now is the time for us to talk about. Because, once the plea is accepted, like I said a moment ago, it s going to be much more difficult to get the court s attention than it is right now. Is there anything else for us to talk about? In response, Defendant said, No. Again, that exchange followed a thorough plea colloquy covering the rights Defendant was giving up, the possible penalties, the disabilities a plea to a felony entails, the plea s voluntariness, and, most importantly for present purposes, its irrevocability. Accordingly, Defendant s motion to withdraw guilty plea is DENIED. Kathryn van Amerongen, Assistant Public Defender State v. Ronald J. Cochran ID # 1103003845 Letter/Order September 7, 2011 Page 3 Defendant s counsel has leave to re-file the motion by noon, September 9, 2011, providing detailed, factual allegations supporting Defendant s currently unsupported claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, FSS: mes oc: Prothonotary (Criminal) Joseph S. Grubb, Deputy Attorney General
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.
