Case Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 652, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEREMY L. BENSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 652, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0603015815 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 27, 2007 
Decided:  September 6, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jeremy Benson, pled guilty to two 
counts of fourth degree rape.  The Superior Court sentenced Benson to a 
total period of thirty years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after 
serving seven years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Benson’s 
direct appeal. 
(2) 
Benson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Benson's counsel asserts that, based upon 
 
2
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Benson's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Benson with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Benson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Benson filed a letter arguing 
that the Superior Court erred in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty 
plea.  Benson argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea 
because his trial counsel told him that he would receive a sentence of no 
more than one year in prison.  The State has responded to Benson’s 
argument, as well as to the position taken by Benson's counsel, and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under 
Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of 
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
3
(4) 
The record reflects that Benson was indicted in April 2006 on 
three counts of second degree rape and one count of terroristic threatening.  
The victim was the minor daughter of his ex-wife.  Benson pled guilty in 
August 2006 to two counts of fourth degree rape.  In exchange, the State 
dismissed the remaining charges.  Benson’s plea agreement reflects that the 
maximum sentence the Superior Court could impose for both charges was 
thirty years imprisonment.  At the start of his sentencing hearing on 
November 27, 2006, Benson requested that he be permitted to withdraw his 
guilty plea.  He asserted that he had entered his guilty plea because his 
attorney had misinformed him that, at most, he would get a year in prison. 
Upon questioning, however, Benson admitted that he was aware that each 
charge carried a potential sentence of up to fifteen years in prison.  He 
further acknowledged that “[my lawyer] did not promise me that it was 
going to be a year.”  Based on this information, the Superior Court denied 
Benson’s request to withdraw his plea. 
(5) 
On appeal, Benson argues that the Superior Court’s denial of 
his motion to withdraw his plea constituted an abuse of discretion.  We 
disagree.  Upon moving to withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant bears the 
burden of establishing that a fair and just reason exists to permit the 
 
4
withdrawal.2  The judge should permit withdrawal of the plea only if the 
judge determines that “the plea was not voluntarily entered or was entered 
because of misapprehension or mistake of defendant as to his legal rights.”3 
(6) 
In this case, the transcript of the guilty plea colloquy clearly 
reflects Benson’s understanding that, by pleading guilty to two counts of 
fourth degree rape, the Superior Court could sentence him to a total 
maximum period of thirty years incarceration.  Benson also acknowledged 
that no one had promised what sentence he would receive.  Absent clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, Benson is bound by his sworn answers 
in open court.4  Accordingly, we find no abuse of the Superior Court’s 
discretion in denying Benson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Benson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Benson's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Benson could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d) (2007). 
3 Scarborough v. State, __ A.2d __, 2007 WL 1223911 (Del. Apr. 26, 2007) 
(quoting State v. Insley, 141 A.2d 619, 622 (Del. 1958)). 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
 
5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice