State of Delaware v. Hayman.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. DARREN L. HAYMAN, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ID#: 0709000058 ORDER Upon Defendant s First Motion for Postconviction Relief SUMMARILY DISMISSED 1. On January 29, 2008, Defendant, Darren L. Hayman, pleaded guilty to Burglary third degree. Hayman had been caught in the act of burglarizing a dentist s office. Before accepting his plea, Hayman told the court, twice, that he was guilty. Hayman also told the court, in writing and orally, that he was satisfied with his lawyer s efforts. 2. Once Hayman pleaded guilty, the State filed a petition to have him sentenced as a habitual offender under 11 Del.C. §4214(a). The court granted the petition and, consistent with the Plea Agreement, sentenced Hayman to three years in prison, followed by six months of transitional probation.1 3. 1 Hayman did not file a direct appeal concerning anything that 11 Del. C. § 4204 (l). happened: before he pleaded guilty, during the plea colloquy or after he was sentenced. Instead, on February 25, 2008, Hayman filed this motion for postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. Consistent with Rule 61(d), the motion has been appropriately referred and given preliminary consideration. As discussed below, the case is subject to summary dismissal under Rule 61(d)(4). 4. Hayman offers four grounds for relief: ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Ineffective assistance of counsel; Violation of Hayman s right against double jeopardy; Prosecutorial misconduct Brady violation; Prosecutorial misconduct prosecutor allegedly altered affidavit of probable cause. 5. Hayman s motion is barred under Rule 61(i)(3). If Hayman honestly believed there was something wrong with the proceedings that led to his guilty plea, he should have told the court about it when the court asked if he was satisfied with his lawyer s representation, and whether the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. After that, Defendant was obligated to challenge the proceedings through a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware. Hayman s motion offers no excuse for his not telling this court and the Supreme Court before now about his concerns. Nor has he attempted to show prejudice, as required by Rule 61(i)(5). 6. If the court were to address Hayman s claims substantively, they border on frivolous. While the record includes several pre-plea letters from Hayman asking to see the State s discovery, and so forth, the fact that Hayman was caught in the act was discussed during the plea colloquy. The court recalls mention that Hayman was injured by a K-9. Whatever flaws there may have been in the indictment, Hayman chose not to challenge them. Instead, Hayman pled guilty to one burglary, without protest. 7. As for double jeopardy, Hayman was not acquitted of the burglary in the past and he is not facing a subsequent prosecution for the same charge in the future. No matter how many indictments against him were handed-up, his right against being placed into jeopardy twice has not been violated. And, there is no prospect that it will be. 8. In summary, this is a case of buyer s remorse. Now that he has pleaded guilty and been sentenced to prison, Hayman regrets his decision. At the time he made it, however, taking the plea was the smartest thing he could have done. Considering the State s case and Hayman s record, the three-year prison sentence was the best Hayman could have reasonably hoped for. As the court commented when it sentenced Hayman, the three years was not harsh. Had he gone to trial, and there was no reasonable possibility that the case would have been dismissed as Hayman suggests, and had he been convicted, his sentence would have been much worse. 9. In any event, it plainly appears from the motion and the record that Hayman is not entitled to postconviction relief. Therefore, the petition is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. The Prothonotary shall cause Hayman to be notified. If the State disagrees, it shall notify the court immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 5, 2008 Date oc: pc: Prothonotary, Criminal Div. Defendant Stephen M. Walther, DAG Ferris W. Wharton, Esquire /s/ Fred S. Silverman Judge
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.
