Case Title: Bissoon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 316, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD C. BISSOON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 316, 2015 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1212011142 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§   
 
Submitted: September 17, 2015 
Decided: 
December 7, 2015  
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 7th day of December 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, 
it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Harold C. Bissoon, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  The State 
has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court judgment on the ground that it 
is manifest on the face of Bissoon’s opening brief that the appeal is without 
merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Bissoon and a co-defendant were arrested 
on December 17, 2012 in connection with a robbery of a Wendy’s restaurant 
2 
 
in Newark, Delaware on December 16, 2012.  On February 4, 2013, Bissoon 
was indicted on four counts of Robbery in the First Degree and one count each 
of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony, Possession of 
a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Wearing a Disguise during the Commission 
of a Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. 
 
(3) 
On October 28, 2013, Bissoon pled guilty to two of the four 
counts of Robbery in the First Degree and to the single count of Conspiracy 
in the Second Degree.  In exchange for Bissoon’s guilty plea, the State agreed 
to dismiss the other charges in the indictment, to recommend no more than 
eighteen years of incarceration, and to forego seeking Bissoon’s sentencing as 
a habitual offender. 
 
(4) 
On January 31, 2014, following a presentence investigation, the 
Superior Court sentenced Bissoon to a total of thirty-two years at Level V 
suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of supervision.  Bissoon 
did not appeal his convictions or sentence.  He did, however, filed a motion 
for reduction of sentence in March 2014.  The Superior Court’s denial of the 
sentence reduction motion was affirmed on appeal.1 
 
 
1 Bissoon v. State, 2014 WL 4104783 (Del. Aug. 19, 2014).  
3 
 
 
(5) 
On August 14, 2014, Bissoon filed a timely motion for 
postconviction relief.  In one of several claims raised in the motion, Bissoon 
contended that, during the plea negotiations, his defense counsel failed to 
recognize that the State lacked evidence to prove that he was guilty of more 
than one count of robbery.  According to Bissoon, because of this alleged lack 
of evidence, the second count of robbery in the plea agreement should have 
been reduced to aggravated menacing. 
 
(6) 
The Superior Court referred Bissoon’s postconviction motion to 
a Commissioner for further proceedings.  At the direction of the 
Commissioner, the State filed a response to the motion, and Bissoon’s defense 
counsel filed an affidavit responding to the allegations of ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  The State opposed the motion, arguing that the claims 
for relief were without merit or were waived by the guilty plea.  Defense 
counsel strongly denied that his representation of Bissoon was ineffective. 
 
(7) 
On March 23, 2015, the Commissioner issued a report 
recommending that Bissoon’s motion for postconviction relief should be 
denied.2  Bissoon filed objections to the Commissioner’s report.  Upon de 
 
 
2 State v. Bissoon, 2015 WL 1566863 (Del. Super. Comm’r Mar. 23, 2015). 
4 
 
novo review, the Superior Court issued an order adopting the Commissioner’s 
report and denying the postconviction motion.  This appeal followed. 
 
(8) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Bissoon argues only one of the 
claims that he raised in his postconviction motion.3  Bissoon argues that his 
defense counsel’s failure to negotiate a more favorable plea agreement 
constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.  When denying the motion for 
postconviction relief, the Superior Court concluded that the ineffective 
counsel claim was without merit.  This Court reviews the denial of 
postconviction relief for abuse of discretion and questions of law de novo.4 
 
(9) 
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the 
context of a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate that his counsel’s 
conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a 
reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s errors, the defendant would 
not have pled guilty but would have insisted on going to trial.5  In this case, 
having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal and the Superior 
 
 
3 Bissoon’s failure to brief his other claims for postconviction relief constitutes a waiver of 
the claims on appeal.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(b)(vi)(A)(3).  Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 
1152 (Del. 1993). 
4 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 (Del. 1996). 
5 Albury v. State, 551 A.2d 53, 58-60 (Del. 1988) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-
60 (1985)). 
5 
 
Court record, the Court concludes that Bissoon’s claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel is without merit.   
 
(10) Bissoon has not established that his defense counsel’s conduct 
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness during the plea 
negotiations.  Also, the record does not reflect a reasonable probability that, 
but for his counsel’s alleged errors, Bissoon would have insisted on going to 
trial.  Bissoon received a significant benefit from the plea agreement 
negotiated by his defense counsel, including convictions on only two of the 
four robbery charges in the indictment, the dismissal of five charges including 
two counts of robbery and two weapon offenses, and the State’s agreement 
not to seek an enhanced sentence.  Under these circumstances, it is not 
surprising that Bissoon does not contend that, but for his defense counsel’s 
failure to obtain a more favorable plea offer, he would not have pleaded guilty 
but would have insisted on going to trial. 
 
(11) To the extent Bissoon argues that the plea agreement should be 
changed because the State allegedly lacked evidence to convict him of an 
offense in the agreement, his argument is unavailing.  A valid guilty plea 
waives any right to challenge the strength of the State’s evidence.6  In his 
 
 
6 Brown v. State, 108 A.3d 1201, 1202 (Del. 2015). 
6 
 
signed guilty plea form dated October 28, 2013, Bissoon indicated that he was 
freely and voluntarily pleading guilty to two counts of robbery and one count 
of conspiracy, and that he was satisfied with his defense counsel’s 
representation.  Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Bissoon 
is bound by those representations.7 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is 
GRANTED, and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
7 Palmer v. State, 2002 WL 31546531 (Del. Nov. 13, 2002) (citing Somerville v. State, 703 
A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997)).