Title: Fisher v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LINFORD U.  FISHER,
§
§
No.  429, 2002
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for Sussex County in Cr.  
§
ID No. 0202004945.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: December 6, 2002
Decided:
February 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of February 2003, 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, Linford Fisher, was charged by Information
with one count of Rape in the Second Degree.  On June 14, 2002, Fisher pleaded nolo
contendere to the lesser included offense of Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Third
Degree.  Fisher signed a guilty plea form and plea agreement that recommended
immediate sentencing to a one-year probationary sentence.  
2
(2)
After an extensive plea colloquy, the Superior Court accepted Fisher’s
guilty plea.  The Superior Court did not, however, immediately sentence Fisher to a
one-year probationary sentence, as the plea agreement had recommended.  Instead,
noting that Fisher had a prior record of sex offenses, and that his latest offense had
occurred while he was on probation, the Superior Court deferred sentencing pending
the preparation of a presentence report.  
(3)
On July 11, 2002, the Superior Court sentenced Fisher to one year at
Level V imprisonment, with credit for 155 days previously served.  The Superior
Court cited as aggravating factors Fisher’s custody status at the time of the offense
and the lack of amenability of lesser sanctions.
(4)
Fisher’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Fisher’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
Fisher’s counsel informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Fisher
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Fisher also was
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  
(5)
Fisher has responded with an issue alleging that his guilty plea was
involuntary due to an alleged breach of the plea agreement.  The State has responded
1Penson v.  Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v.  Court of Appeals, 486 U.S.
429, 442 (1988)); Anders v.  California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
3
to Fisher’s issue, as well as to the position taken by Fisher’s counsel, and has moved
to affirm the Superior Court’s decision.
(6)
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.   First,
this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious
examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.  Second, 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
(7)
 Fisher contends that immediate sentencing to a one-year probationary
sentence was “integral” to the plea agreement.  Thus, according to Fisher, when the
Superior Court deferred sentencing, ordered a presentence report, and ultimately
sentenced Fisher to a term of imprisonment, the Court changed the terms of the plea
agreement and rendered the plea involuntary. 
(8)
We find no merit to Fisher’s contention.  The fact that Fisher did not
receive immediate sentencing and a probationary sentence, as he had hoped, did not
invalidate his plea agreement or render his plea involuntary.  The plea agreement did
2See Del.  Super.  Ct.  Crim.  R.  11(e)(1)(B).
4
not promise a particular sentence, and the Superior Court was not bound by the
parties’ recommendation of immediate sentencing to a one-year probationary
sentence.2  Indeed, during the plea colloquy, Fisher explicitly acknowledged that he
understood that the sentencing judge would decide whether or not to impose the
sentence that was recommended by the parties.  Moreover, Fisher replied in the
affirmative when asked whether he understood that his prior offenses were going to
be taken into consideration in the sentencing judge’s decision.  
(9)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Fisher’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.
We also are satisfied that Fisher’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine
the record and the law and has properly determined that Fisher 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/ Myron T. Steele
Justice