Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Markez J. Garrison’s motion for postconviction relief. The court rejected Garrison’s claim that he did not know the extent of problems in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner when he entered his guilty plea, applying plain-error review and relying on his signed plea form. The court granted the State’s motion to affirm and deemed appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw satisfied counsel's obligation to conduct a conscientious examination of the record and whether the appeal was frivolous.
- Whether Garrison's failure to reassert his ineffective-assistance claims on appeal waived those claims.
- Whether Garrison demonstrated plain error based on his alleged lack of knowledge about problems in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner when he entered his guilty plea.
- Whether Garrison's signed guilty plea form and his failure to show clear and convincing evidence to the contrary foreclosed his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea.
Holdings
- When reviewing a Rule 26(c) motion to withdraw and accompanying brief, the Supreme Court must determine whether counsel conscientiously examined the record and law for arguable claims and must independently review the record to determine whether the appeal is so frivolous that it may be decided without adversary presentation.
- A defendant waives claims raised in the postconviction motion when the defendant fails to reassert those claims on appeal.
- When a postconviction claim was not raised in the motion below, appellate review is limited to plain error.
- Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a defendant is bound by representations in a signed guilty plea form that the plea was entered freely and voluntarily and that counsel's representation was satisfactory.
Key quotations
“the appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.” (¶ 8)
“Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Garrison is bound by those representations.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Garrison was indicted on charges of Drug Dealing plus Aggravator, Criminal Impersonation, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, with notice that the State intended to seek habitual-offender sentencing. He pleaded guilty to Drug Dealing plus Aggravator in exchange for dismissal of the other charges and the State's agreement not to pursue habitual-offender sentencing. In his Rule 61 motion, he alleged that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately negotiating the plea, failing to investigate his substance-abuse history, and failing to suppress his admissions to police. On appeal, he asserted a different claim concerning his lack of knowledge about problems in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Procedural history
Garrison pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to Drug Dealing plus Aggravator in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and the State's agreement not to seek habitual-offender sentencing. The Superior Court sentenced him to fifteen years at Level V, suspended after six years and successful completion of the Key Program. The court denied his Rule 61 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed while granting the State's motion to affirm; the motion to withdraw was moot.