State of Delaware v. Barkley.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE Plaintiff, v. ERIC BARKLEY Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: N11M-06-022 ORDER Motion For Return of Property DENIED. 1. On July 13, 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug felony. 2. As part of the process Defendant signed a plea agreement providing: The defendant will forfeit $1,752 seized to SLEAF. 3. Despite his written agreement to forfeit the $1,752 on August 18, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for return of the money. 4. Defendant s motion claims the money was illegally seized and that he had been approved for back payment of social security, and Samaritan Outreach had been assisting [Defendant] with payment of rent and utilities. . . . Defendant also claims the money was legitimate and not drug related. But, Defendant does not claim the seized money actually came from social security or Samaritan Outreach, much less where, when, how and in what amounts he came into the money. 5. Most importantly, even if Defendant s claim to the money seemed compelling, which it does not, as part of his guilty plea, Defendant agreed to forfeiture. He cannot go back on that. A deal is a deal. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant s August 18, 2011 motion for return of property is DENIED. A separate order of forfeiture has been issued and docketed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: October 17, 2011 /s/ Fred S. Silverman Judge cc: Prothonotary (Civil) Robert J. O Neill, Jr., Deputy Attorney General Eric Barkley, Pro Se 2
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.
