Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hoffman

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

November 5, 2013

STATE OF DELAWARE
v.
LYDIA V. HOFFMAN, Defendant.

Submitted: November 4, 2013.

RK12-02-0204-01

Dennis Kelleher, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, for the State of Delaware.

Lydia V. Hoffman, Pro se.

ORDER

YOUNG, Judge.

Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion For Postconviction Relief, the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, it appears that:

1.The Defendant, Lydia V. Hoffman ("Hoffman"), pled guilty on July 5, 2012 to one count of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs, 21 Del. C. § 4177. In exchange for Hoffman's plea, the State entered a nolle prosequis on the remaining charges of one count of Driving While License was Suspended or Revoked, one count of Improper Lane Change and one count of Failing to Signal. The State and the Defense, jointly recommended Hoffman receive ninety days at Level V followed by probation. The Court agreed and sentenced Hoffman according to the Plea Agreement.

2. The Defendant did not appeal her conviction or sentence to the Delaware Supreme Court; instead she filed, pro se, the pending Motion For Postconviction Relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61. In her motion the defendant raises the following grounds for relief:: 1) Time limitations; 2) Fine amount; 3) Ineffective assistance of counsel; and 4) Entry of guilty plea prior to full understanding of 21 Del. C. § 4177 subsequent offense.

3. The Court referred this motion to Superior Court Commissioner Andrea M. Freud pursuant to 10 Del. C. §512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law.

4.The Commissioner has filed a Report and Recommendation concluding that the Motion For Postconviction Relief should be denied, because it is procedurally barred by Rule 61(i)(3) for failure to demonstrate cause and prejudice.

NOW, THEREFORE, after de novo review of the record in this action, and for reasons stated in the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court, and the Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.