Case Title: Parisi v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 642, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM A. PARISI,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 642, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-10-0552
§                   IN00-10-0569
§
Submitted: March 21, 2003
  Decided:   May 5, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 5th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and
the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, William A. Parisi, filed an appeal from
the Superior Court’s October 29, 2002 order denying his motion for
postconviction relief pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.  We find no
merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
(2)
After being indicted on numerous counts of burglary, theft, and
conspiracy, among other charges, Parisi pleaded guilty in March 2001 to two
counts of Burglary in the Second Degree.  Under the terms of the plea
1SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 11(e) (1) (C) (deleted July 1, 2001).
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4214(a).
3Parisi withdraws this claim in his reply brief.
-2-
agreement,1 Parisi admitted that he was an habitual offender.2  He was
sentenced by the Superior Court on each count of second degree burglary to 8
years incarceration at Level V, to be followed by 6 months probation at Level
III.  Parisi did not file a direct appeal from his convictions or sentences. 
(3)
In this appeal, Parisi claims that: a) his guilty plea was involuntary
because he was not informed of the nature of the charges or the mandatory
penalty for those charges; b) the Superior Court breached the plea agreement
by disallowing any good time credits3 and by imposing two 6-month
probationary sentences; c) the Superior Court should not have permitted him
to admit to habitual offender status because the State did not present any
evidence of prior convictions; and d) his counsel provided ineffective assistance
by permitting him to plead guilty to second degree burglary in the absence of
evidence that he had committed that crime and by failing to inform him of his
right to appeal his probationary sentences.
(4)
Parisi’s claim that his plea was involuntary is refuted by the
record.  The plea agreement, the guilty plea form and the transcript of the plea
4Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
5DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4204(l).
-3-
colloquy all clearly reflect that Parisi understood the nature of the plea and its
consequences, understood that he was waiving his right to an appeal, was
satisfied with the representation provided by his counsel and knowingly and
intelligently entered the plea.  Absent clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary, Parisi is bound by the representations he made at the time the plea was
entered.4 
(5)
Parisi’s claim that the Superior Court breached the plea agreement
by imposing probation in connection with his Level V term is without merit.
The plea agreement reflects that Parisi agreed to a total of 16 years
incarceration at Level V, which is what the Superior Court imposed.  When
imposing a term of incarceration totaling one year or more, however, the
Superior Court is mandated by statute to impose probation “for a period of not
less than 6 months to facilitate the transition of the individual back into
society.”5  The Superior Court properly followed the statutory requirement
when imposing Parisi’s sentence and Parisi can not claim error on that basis.
(6)
Parisi’s claim that his habitual offender status was improperly
accepted by the Superior Court without any evidence of past convictions is
6Parker v. State, Del. Supr., No. 244, 2000, Veasey, C.J. (July 26, 2000).
7Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).
8Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d at 631.
-4-
without merit.  Parisi agreed during the guilty plea proceedings that he qualified
for habitual offender status.  By accepting the plea agreement, which contained
that stipulation, Parisi waived his right to a hearing to determine his status as
an habitual offender.6
(7)
In order to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Parisi must show that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors,
there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would
have been different.7  In order to prevail on his claim that his counsel was
ineffective in connection with the entry of his guilty plea, Parisi must show
that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, he would not have pleaded
guilty but would have insisted on proceeding to trial.8  
(8)
There is no evidence in the record that any action on the part of
Parisi’s counsel, either in connection with the guilty plea or otherwise, resulted
in any prejudice to Parisi.  Parisi’s plea of guilty to two counts of second degree
burglary resulted in a number of other serious charges being dropped, thus
9Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (Del. 1988).
10 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4204(l).
-5-
providing a substantial benefit to him.9  Also unavailing is Parisi’s claim that
his counsel improperly deprived him of an opportunity to appeal his
probationary sentences.  Because the Superior Court was mandated to impose
a period of probation, any such appeal would have been fruitless and Parisi can,
therefore, show no prejudice due to any alleged error on the part of his
counsel.10   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice