Title: Perkins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DWIGHT W. H. PERKINS, JR.,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 101, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0407018106 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 28, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 27, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 27th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Dwight W. H. Perkins, Jr., filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s January 25, 2006 sentencing order and its 
subsequent denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and denial of his 
motion for transcripts.  The plaintiff-appellee, the State of Delaware, has 
moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) 
On January 25, 2006, Perkins, with the assistance of legal 
counsel, entered a plea of guilty to Robbery in the Second Degree (as a 
lesser-included offense of Robbery in the First Degree), Possession of a 
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and Possession of a Deadly 
Weapon by a Person Prohibited.  In exchange for his guilty plea, the State 
dismissed the charge of Robbery in the First Degree.  On that same date, 
Perkins was sentenced to a total of twenty years of Level V incarceration, to 
be suspended after sixteen years for probation.  Perkins subsequently filed a 
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a motion for transcripts of a 
November 2, 2005 hearing on his motion to dismiss counsel and December 
19, 2005 “office conference proceedings,” both of which were denied by the 
Superior Court.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Perkins claims that the Superior Court erred by: 
a) accepting his involuntary guilty plea; b) denying his motion to dismiss his 
indictment; c) appointing as standby trial counsel the attorney he had moved 
to dismiss; d) undermining his right to self-representation by appointing that 
attorney as standby counsel; e) failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his 
claim that his attorney had a conflict of interest; and f) denying his motion 
for transcripts.   
 
3
 
(4) 
The record before us in this case, consisting of the plea 
agreement and guilty plea form, does not support Perkins’ argument that his 
guilty plea was involuntary.  To the contrary, the guilty plea form reflects 
that he answered “yes” when asked if he had freely and voluntarily decided 
to plead guilty and also answered “yes” when asked if he was satisfied with 
his counsel’s representation.  That Perkins originally answered “no” to those 
questions and then changed his answers to “yes” is not necessarily an 
indication of “coercion” on the part of his counsel, as Perkins argues.  It is 
more likely reflective of a rational decision on Perkins’ part to accept the 
substantial benefit of the plea offer extended by the State.  Thus, in the 
absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Perkins is bound 
by the representations he made on his guilty plea form.1  As such, we 
conclude that Perkins’ first claim of an involuntary guilty plea is without 
merit.   
 
(5) 
As for Perkins’ next four claims, Delaware law provides that a 
voluntary guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any alleged errors or defects 
occurring prior to the entry of the plea.2  Because Perkins’ next four claims 
all constitute alleged errors or defects occurring prior to the entry of his 
voluntary guilty plea, we conclude that they, too, are without merit. 
                                          
 
1 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
2 Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2003). 
 
4
 
(6) 
Perkins’ final claim is that the Superior Court should have 
provided him with free transcripts of a November 2, 2005 hearing on his 
motion to dismiss counsel and of December 19, 2005 “office conference 
proceedings.”  It was Perkins’ burden to demonstrate a particularized need 
for those transcripts in connection with his appeal.3  We conclude that the 
Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it found he had not done so.  
Moreover, because the transcripts relate to matters that occurred prior to the 
entry of his voluntary guilty plea, Perkins is foreclosed from pursuing any 
claims relating to those matters in any case. 
 
(7) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
3 Freeman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 112, 2003, Berger, J. (Apr. 8, 2003).