Evans v. State

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CURTIS L. EVANS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 1, 2002 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN97-12-1559,1561 1562,1567,1574 Submitted: March 15, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices ORDER This 17th day of April 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Curtis L. Evans, filed an appeal from the December 19, 2001 order of the Superior Court denying his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (2) In this appeal, Evans claims that: a) his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file the appropriate pre-trial motions, conduct an adequate investigation, interview or subpoena witnesses, and effectively utilize discovery; b) his guilty plea was involuntary due to his attorney s improper advice; c) the Superior Court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion; d) the Superior Court violated his rights when it accepted his guilty pleas because there was no factual basis for them; e) his arrest was illegal; and f) the arrest warrants obtained by the police were based upon perjured statements. (3) In March 1999 Evans pleaded guilty to Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Robbery in the First Degree, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. Evans was sentenced to a total of 32 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 23 years for decreasing levels of probation. Evans did not file a direct appeal of any of his convictions or sentences. (4) In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Evans must show that his counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings -2- would have been different.1 Although not insurmountable, the Strickland standard is highly demanding and leads to a strong presumption that the representation was professionally reasonable. 2 Evans claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails under this standard. Evans fails to provide any factual support for his claim that alleged errors on the part of his attorney resulted in prejudice to him.3 (5) In order to prevail on his claim that his guilty plea was involuntary due to his attorney s improper advice, Evans must show that, but for counsel s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.4 Evans claim fails under this standard. The record, including the transcript of the plea colloquy, reveals no error on the part of Evans counsel and no indication that his guilty plea was involuntary.5 1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). 2 Flamer v. State, 585 A.2d 736, 753 (Del. 1990). 3 Under these circumstances, the Superior Court was clearly within its discretion to decide Evans claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without a hearing. SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 61(h) (1) and (3) (2002). 4 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58 (Del. 1988). 5 Evans signed the plea agreement and the guilty plea form. Even though he originally indicated dissatisfaction with his attorney, in his plea colloquy he stated that he was satisfied with his attorney s performance. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Evans is bound by his representations. Somerville v. State, 703 (continued...) -3- (6) Evans remaining claims are also without merit. As noted in the Superior Court s decision below, there is no basis in the record for Evans claims of error and abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court, nor is there any evidence that his arrest was illegal. Moreover, Evans voluntary guilty plea waives all defects allegedly occurring before he entered the plea.6 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 5 (...continued) A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 6 Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988). The only exception is a claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which has not been asserted by Evans and for which we find no support in the record. -4-

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.