Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court issued a per curiam order affirming the Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief. The court determined that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial following a thorough colloquy. Additionally, the court rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal, finding it unpreserved, not plain error, and substantively without merit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Wharton knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial
- Whether a new claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, not raised below, may be considered on appeal and constitutes plain error
Holdings
- The waiver was valid; therefore the Superior Court's denial of postconviction relief is affirmed.
- The claim was not raised in the lower court, does not raise a plain error issue, and therefore will not be considered; the judgment is affirmed.
Key quotations
““Wharton was in a better position than the State to find the Incriminating Messages. He is the one who sent them. Thus, Wharton had to know about their contents. Wharton was necessarily aware that he was at the risk of the State learning of those conversations, whether through some digital record or from [the recipient] himself.””
Factual background
Wharton waived his right to a jury trial after a colloquy with the trial court in which counsel explained the consequences. He later argued that counsel was deficient for not advising him to withdraw the waiver after an adverse evidentiary ruling. The record shows Wharton knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made the waiver and that the alleged deficiency was not raised in the lower court.
Procedural history
Wharton filed a motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court of Delaware. The Superior Court denied the motion. Wharton appealed the denial to the Supreme Court of Delaware.