Leatherbury v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Jermaine E. Leatherbury’s motion for postconviction relief. The Court rejected his claims that his guilty plea was invalid and that defense counsel was ineffective in connection with the later investigation into misconduct in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner’s Controlled Substances Unit. The Court granted the State’s motion to affirm and found the appeal wholly without merit.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in denying postconviction relief because Leatherbury did not show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and did not allege that, but for counsel's alleged errors, he would have rejected the guilty plea and insisted on going to trial.
2. Leatherbury was not entitled to postconviction relief because he alleged no facts showing that the OCME investigation rendered his guilty plea involuntary or that he was unjustly convicted.
3. The appeal was wholly without merit, counsel made a conscientious examination of the record and law, and the motion to affirm should be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion or committed legal error in denying Leatherbury's motion for postconviction relief.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to inform Leatherbury about the OCME investigation when the investigation had not occurred at the time of the guilty plea.
3. Whether the OCME investigation rendered Leatherbury's guilty plea involuntary or resulted in an unjust conviction.
4. Whether the appeal was wholly without merit under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c).

Disposition

affirmed