Title: Ferguson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARK T. FERGUSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 503, 2000
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN99-09-0063-0064 
§                   IN99-09-0862
§                   IN99-09-0072
Submitted: June 4, 2001
  Decided:   July 18, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 18th day of July 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In November 1999, the defendant-appellant, Mark T. Ferguson,
was charged with two counts of theft, three counts of conspiracy in the second
degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, one count of possession of
a deadly weapon during the commission of felony, and two counts of
kidnaping in the first degree.  Ferguson pleaded guilty to two counts of theft
and two counts of conspiracy in the second degree.  On each of the theft
1Penson 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).
-2-
convictions, he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment at Level V, with the
second sentence to be suspended after 1 year for 1 year at Level IV.  On each
of the conspiracy convictions, Ferguson was sentenced to 2 years
imprisonment at Level V, with the second sentence to be suspended for 6
months at Level III.  This is Ferguson’s direct appeal.
(2)
Ferguson’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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 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
(3)
Ferguson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.
By letter, Ferguson’s counsel informed Ferguson of the provisions of Rule
2Desmond v. State, Del. Supr., 654 A.2d 821, 829 (1994).
-3-
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the
accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Ferguson was also
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Ferguson
responded with a brief that raises three issues for this Court’s consideration.
The State has responded to the position taken by Ferguson’s counsel as well
as the issues raised by Ferguson and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment.  
(4)
Ferguson raises three issues for this Court’s consideration.  He
claims: a) his attorney provided ineffective assistance; b) he improperly
pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy; and c) he received an unfair
sentence.
(5)
This Court will not consider on direct appeal any claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel that was not raised below.2  Accordingly, we
will not consider Ferguson’s claims of ineffective assistance for the first time
in this direct appeal.
(6)
Ferguson’s second claim that he improperly pleaded guilty to two
counts of conspiracy is unavailing.  We have reviewed the transcript of the
3Downer v. State, Del. Supr., 543 A.2d 309, 312-13 (1988).
4Id.
511 Del. C. § 512; 11 Del. C. § 841; 11 Del. C. § 4205.
6Walt v. State, Del. Supr., 727 A.2d 836, 840 (1999).
-4-
plea colloquy and conclude that Ferguson’s plea was knowing, voluntary and
intelligent and, as such, constitutes a waiver of any alleged defect that
occurred prior to its entry.3  Moreover, the plea bargain afforded Ferguson a
substantial benefit and for that reason, too, he is foreclosed from challenging
it.4 
(7)
Ferguson’s third claim that his sentence was unfair and should be
reduced is meritless.  The sentences imposed were in line with the statutory
limits.5  Moreover, there is no suggestion that they were imposed on the basis
of false or unreliable information.6  As such, there is no basis for a reduction
of Ferguson’s sentences.     
(8)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Ferguson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Ferguson’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that
Ferguson could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
-5-
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/Joseph T. Walsh
         Justice