Windsor v. State

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed William T. Windsor, III's convictions and sentences following his guilty plea to rape in the second degree and nolo contendere plea to continuous sexual abuse of a child. The Court held that the Superior Court properly declined to entertain Windsor's untimely pro se motion to withdraw his pleas and rejected his challenges concerning sentencing, coercion, prosecutorial misconduct, confrontation, and due process.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court properly refused to consider Windsor's tardy pro se request because he was represented by counsel, had not been permitted to participate independently, and his counsel had not endorsed or filed the motion. The request was therefore a legal nullity.
2. The sentencing challenges lacked merit because the sentences were within the statutory limits, Delaware's sentencing guidelines are voluntary and nonbinding, the record did not establish judicial bias or an enforceable oral sentencing promise, and Windsor presented no basis for an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim.
3. The confrontation and due-process claims were waived because they were not raised below, and they did not satisfy the plain-error standard.
4. Windsor failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct, unlawful duplicative charging, or coercion. The indictment could charge offenses of the same or similar character in separate counts, the charges were reduced and severed, the State's motion to rejoin was denied, and Windsor's sworn plea statements contradicted coercion.
5. The Court would not consider Windsor's ineffective-assistance claims because they were raised for the first time on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court was required to entertain Windsor's last-minute pro se request to withdraw his guilty plea under Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d) while he was represented by counsel.
2. Whether Windsor's sentences were unlawful because they exceeded sentencing guidelines, resulted from judicial bias or an alleged oral sentencing agreement, or constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Whether the Superior Court plainly erred by limiting a potential trial to three days and thereby violating Windsor's Sixth Amendment confrontation right or due process rights.
4. Whether the prosecution committed misconduct by charging offenses involving two victims, bringing allegedly duplicative charges, seeking to rejoin the cases, coercing the pleas, or failing to show Windsor discovery materials.
5. Whether Windsor could raise ineffective-assistance claims for the first time on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed