Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ANZARA M. BROWN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 548, 2007 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County Cr. ID No. 0505004593 Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 3rd day of June 2008, upon careful consideration of the briefs on appeal and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Anzara M. Brown, filed this appeal from a September 25, 2007 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We conclude that there is no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) The record reflects that Brown was arrested in May 2005 and thereafter charged with various drug and criminal offenses, including trafficking in cocaine. On March 21, 2006, Brown pled guilty to one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. Brown also admitted that he was eligible for sentencing as a habitual criminal pursuant to title 11, section 4214(a) of the Delaware Code. In exchange for Brown s guilty plea, the State agreed to nolle prosse the remaining charges. The Superior Court sentenced Brown to three years minimum mandatory at Level V. (3) On July 31, 2006, Brown filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. Brown argued that his guilty plea should be considered involuntary due to his defense counsel s failure to challenge the existence of a search warrant and to move to suppress. (4) The Superior Court referred Brown s motion to a Commissioner who issued a report and recommendation that Brown s claims were either procedurally barred or were without merit. After considering Brown s challenge to the Comimissioner s report and recommendation, the Superior Court denied Brown s motion for postconviction relief. This appeal followed. (5) The Court has carefully considered the parties positions on appeal. It is manifest that the denial of postconviction relief should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court s decision of September 25, 2007 that adopted the Commissioner s well-reasoned report and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 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.
