Case Title: Carlson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 76, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DENNIS N. CARLSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 76, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below⎯Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.ID 0112018247 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 5, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 13, 2004 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 13th day of December 2004, upon consideration of the Superior Court’s 
report and recommendations following remand and the parties’ respective 
responses thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
This is Dennis Carlson’s direct appeal from his criminal sentencing on 
multiple counts of securities law violations.  Carlson was represented at trial by 
privately-retained counsel. Prior to sentencing, the Superior Court granted defense 
counsel’s motion to withdraw on the ground of irreconcilable differences.  The 
public defender informed the Superior Court that Carlson did not meet the 
financial eligibility requirements. Carlson, therefore, proceeded to sentencing 
without legal counsel. 
 
2
(2) 
After filing his notice of appeal pro se, Carlson filed a motion for the 
appointment of counsel.  On July 27, 2004, we remanded the matter to the Superior 
Court for a fact-finding hearing on Carlson’s financial ability to retain legal 
counsel.  The Superior Court filed its report on remand on October 21, 2004.  In its 
report, the Superior Court concluded that Carlson is indigent, and therefore entitled 
to legal counsel at State expense on direct appeal.  Moreover, the Superior Court 
recognized that Carlson was, in fact, indigent at the time of his sentencing and was 
entitled to the assistance of court-appointed counsel at that time.  The Superior 
Court therefore recommended that the matter be remanded for resentencing. 
(3) 
Both Carlson and the State have responded to the Superior Court’s 
report.  The State laudably concedes plain error in the sentencing of Carlson, an 
indigent defendant, without the benefit of court-appointed counsel.  Under the 
unique circumstances of this case, we find it necessary to vacate the Superior 
Court’s January 30, 2004 sentencing order and to remand this matter for a new 
sentencing hearing after counsel is appointed to represent Carlson.    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment 
is VACATED.  This matter is hereby REMANDED for a new sentencing hearing 
in accordance with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                  Justice