Title: Scaggs v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL SCAGGS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 390, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1907004508 (N) 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted: May 15, 2023 
Decided: 
May 30, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
A grand jury indicted the appellant, Michael Scaggs, on three counts of 
first-degree rape, eight counts of second-degree rape, continuous sexual abuse of a 
child, sexual solicitation of a child, and other offenses.  The charges arose from 
Scaggs’s sexual abuse of a young household member over a period of approximately 
eight years, until the child disclosed the abuse when she was about fourteen years 
old.  On October 4, 2021, Scaggs pleaded guilty to first-degree rape, continuous 
sexual abuse of a child, and sexual solicitation of a child.  In exchange for the guilty 
 
2
plea, the State dismissed the other charges, agreed not to seek enhanced sentencing 
under 11 Del. C. § 4205A,1 and agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 
twenty-five years.  On March 25, 2022, the Superior Court sentenced Scaggs to life 
in prison for first-degree rape and to twenty-five years of imprisonment, suspended 
after ten years for decreasing levels of supervision, for each of the other two offenses 
to which Scaggs pleaded guilty.   
(2) 
Scaggs did not file a direct appeal, but defense counsel filed, on his 
behalf, a timely motion for modification of sentence under Superior Court Criminal 
Rule 35.  The motion asked the court to reconsider the mitigation factors that the 
defense had presented and to reconsider and give great weight to the fact that the 
defendant had entered into a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend 
no more than twenty-five years of imprisonment.  On April 27, 2022, the Superior 
Court denied the motion, stating that the court had reconsidered all the factors 
presented and again determined that the sentence was appropriate.  On September 
12, 2022, Scaggs filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief in which he asserted 
that his “court appointed attorney failed to file an appeal” and, more specifically, 
that he “waited 4 months for word of an appeal to find out my counsel never filed 
an appeal on my behalf after the rule 35 was denied as we discussed.”  He further 
 
1 See 11 Del. C. § 4205A (providing for enhanced sentencing for certain sexual offenses against 
young children, upon application by the State). 
 
3
asserted that he had written to his counsel on August 8, 2022, and “[i]t is now 9-8-
22 and there has been no reply.”  The Superior Court resolved the motion for 
postconviction relief in a letter order dated September 27, 2022, in which the court 
determined that the relief that Scaggs sought was the opportunity to appeal the denial 
of the motion for sentence modification.  The court concluded that vacating and 
reissuing the order denying the motion for sentence modification would provide the 
requested relief.  The court therefore entered orders vacating and reissuing its April 
27, 2022 order denying the motion for sentence modification.  Appellate counsel 
from the Office of Defense Services then filed this appeal from the denial of the 
motion for sentence modification on Scaggs’s behalf.   
(3) 
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious review 
of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.  In her statement filed 
under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that she informed Scaggs of the provisions of 
Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Scaggs of his right to submit points he 
wanted this Court to consider on appeal.  Scaggs has not submitted any points for 
the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues 
that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  
 
4
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.2  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”3 
(5) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Scaggs could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot.  
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice 
 
 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
3 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.