 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Curtis5/10/2004
This is an appeal by Defendant Ricky F. Curtis (hereinafter "Curtis") from a Justice of the Peace Court order denying Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. Curtis appealed the Court's decision on August 8, 2003. On December 5, 2003, the State moved to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the appeal is dismissed.
Facts
Defendant Curtis was arrested and charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol under 21 Del. C. § 4177(a), and was arraigned in Justice of the Peace Court 14. He appeared pro se, pled guilty to DUI and elected to enter into the First Offender's Program. The defendant subsequently retained counsel, who filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. The Justice of the Peace Court heard oral arguments on the motion, and denied the motion. Curtis subsequently appealed the denial to this Court. At the time of the filing of the appeal, Curtis continued to be on probation under the First Offender's Program.
Standard of Review
A motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentence is imposed is reviewable only for manifest injustice. Del. J. Peace Crim. R. 32(d); see also Fox v. State, 2001 WL 34075506 (Del.Com.Pl .). The burden of proving manifest injustice is on the defendant, State v. Insley, 141 A.2d 619, 622 (Del.1958); State v. Richards, 1998 WL 732960 (Del.1972). Further, "the decision [to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea] rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is only reviewable for abuse of discretion." State v. Insley, supra at 622.
This Court, acting in its capacity as an intermediate appellate court, is obligated to "correct errors of law and to review actual findings of the court below to determine if they are sufficiently supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process." State v. Richards, supra. Further, Defendant's appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a collateral attack.
The appropriate standard of review for a collateral attack is an abuse of discretion standard, and the review should be on the record found below. Vergara v. State, 2001 WL 34083562 at *1 (Del.Super.Ct.).
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas
The Court of Common Pleas is a statutory court empowered only with that jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it by statute. DE. CONST. art. IV. § 28. This Court's limited statutory jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals from the Justice of the Peace Court is authorized by 11 Del. C. § 5920 for Title 11 violations, and by 21 Del. C. § 708 for Title 21 motor vehicle violations. Each statute contains specific jurisdictional requirements that limit the right to an appeal. If these requirements are not met, then this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Appeals From Title 11 Offenses
Section 5920 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code applies specifically to appeals from the JP Court regarding Title 11 criminal actions. It grants a criminal defendant a right of appeal to this Court "[f]rom any order, ruling, decision, judgment or sentence of the Court entered in a Justice of the Peace Court in a criminal action pursuant to this title in which the sentence shall be imprisonment exceeding 1 month or a fine exceeding $100." This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Title 11 matter if the sentence imposed is less than the required amount of fine or length of imprisonment. See Marsh v. Justice of the Peace Court No. 2, 1998 WL 960739 at *1 (Del.Super.Ct.); Freeman v. State, 1998 WL 278395 at *1 (Del.Super.Ct.); Lynch v. State, 1994 WL 750314 at *1 (Del.Super.Ct.); Sinagra v. State, 1995 WL 108662 at * 1 (Del.Super.Ct.). This Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under 11 Del. C. § 5920 even when the lower court suspends a Leve
Page 1 2 3 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|