Title: Rogers v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
INNOCENT E. ROGERS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 195, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID N1703019541 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted:  September 11, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  November 8, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On November 7, 2017, the defendant-appellant, Innocent E. Rogers, 
entered a no contest plea to one count of Dealing in Child Pornography and three 
counts of Possession of Child Pornography.  After accepting his plea, the Superior 
Court revoked Rogers’ bail, deferred sentencing, and ordered a presentence 
investigation.  Before sentencing, Rogers moved to withdraw his plea.  On March 
23, 2018, the Superior Court denied Rogers’ motion and sentenced him to a total 
 
2 
period of thirty-four years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving two 
years in prison for a period of probation.  This is Rogers’ direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Rogers’ counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, counsel 
informed Rogers of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of 
the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the transcript of the guilty plea 
colloquy.  Rogers also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s 
presentation.  Rogers raises several issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State 
has responded to the position taken by Rogers’ counsel as well as to the issues raised 
by Rogers 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) the 
Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination 
of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and b) 
the Court must conduct its own review of the record in order to 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 transcript of Rogers’ plea colloquy reflects that Rogers was 
charged with twenty-five counts of Dealing in Child Pornography, which is a Class 
B felony punishable by a prison sentence of two to twenty-five years.2  In exchange 
for Rogers’ plea of no contest to one count of Dealing in Child Pornography and 
three counts of the lesser-included Class F felony of Possession of Child 
Pornography, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.  Rogers informed 
the trial court that he was pleading no contest because the State had sufficient 
evidence against him.  He stated that no one had coerced him into pleading guilty 
and that no one had promised him what his sentence would be.  He further 
acknowledged all of the rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty.    
 
(5) 
Rogers fairly raises two issues for the Court’s consideration on appeal.  
First, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective.  Second, he claims that the 
Superior Court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty 
plea.  We address only this second claim because a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel is not one that we will consider for the first time on direct appeal.3 
 
(6) 
We review the Superior Court’s denial of Rogers’ motion to withdraw 
his plea for abuse of discretion.4  Upon moving to withdraw his guilty plea, Rogers 
                                                 
2 See 11 Del. C. § 1109(4) (Dealing in Child Pornography a Class B felony); 11 Del. C. § 
4205(b)(2) (Class B felony punishable by prison sentence of two to twenty-five years). 
3 Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 233, 234 (Del. 2008). 
4 Chavous v. State, 953 A.2d 282, 285 (Del. 2008). 
 
4 
had the burden to establish a fair and just reason to permit withdrawal.5  A judge 
should permit withdrawal of a 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.”6  Here, the record unequivocally establishes that 
Rogers entered his plea voluntarily and that he was not operating under any 
misapprehension or mistake as to his legal rights.7  Under the circumstances, we find 
no abuse of the Superior Court's discretion in denying Rogers’ motion to withdraw 
his guilty plea.  
 
(7) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Rogers’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
We also are satisfied that Rogers’ counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and has properly determined that Rogers could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
5 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d). 
6 Scarborough v. State, 938 A.2d 644, 650 (Del. 2007). 
7 See Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).