Gibbs v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RODERICK GIBBS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 67, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 9912008045 Submitted: June 21, 2002 Decided: August 9, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the parties briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Roderick Gibbs, pleaded guilty in May 2000 to one count of first degree assault. The Superior Court sentenced him in July 2000 to ten years at Level V incarceration, suspended after serving five years for decreasing levels of supervision. In October 2001, Gibbs filed his first petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the prosecutor s alleged conflict of interest and for failing to file an appeal, that his guilty plea was not voluntary, and that the Superior Court erred in sentencing him in excess of the sentencing guidelines. The Superior Court denied Gibbs petition on its merits. This appeal ensued. (2) Having carefully considered the parties respective briefs, we find it manifest that the Superior Court s judgment should be affirmed on the basis of its well-reasoned decision dated January 16, 2002. The Superior Court s finding that Gibbs entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily is supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. Accordingly, in light of Gibbs admitted guilt, we agree with the Superior Court that Gibbs could not establish any prejudice from his attorney s alleged errors. Finally, the Superior Court was entirely correct that Gibbs sentence, which fell within the statutory range of authorized penalties, provided no basis for postconviction relief.1 The Superior Court did not err in summarily disposing of Gibbs claims without holding a hearing.2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: _Myron T. Steele____________________ Justice 1 See Gaines v. State, 511 A.2d 765, 766-67 (Del. 1990). 2 See Maxion v. State, 686 A.2d 148, 11 (Del. 1996). 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.
