IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, )

)

v. ) ID Nos. 2111014013, 2112000947

)

LUIS FIDLAGO, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Date Submitted: June 23, 2023

Date Decided: June 27, 2023

ORDER

AND NOW TO WIT, this 27th day of June 2023, the Court having duly 

considered Defendant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief,

1 Defendant’s Letter 

Motion for Appointment of Postconviction Counsel,2 Defendant’s Amended Motion 

for Postconviction Relief,

3

the State’s Response,4 Superior Court Criminal Rule 61,5

and the Record in these cases, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are 

DENIED as meritless for the following reasons:

1

ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 10; ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 12. 

2

ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 17; ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 17. 

3

ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 18; ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 18.

4

ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 19; ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 19.

5 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. This Order addresses the merits of Fidlago’s motion because it is not 

procedurally barred by the rules. First, Fidlago’ was sentenced in December 2022, and he did not 

file a direct appeal with the Supreme Court; therefore, his motion was timely filed. Id. at 61(i)(1). 

Second, this is Fidlago’s first postconviction motion, so it is not barred as repetitive. Id. at 61(i)(2). 

Third, Fidlago alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, which could not have been raised on direct 

appeal, so his motion is not procedurally defaulted. Id. at 61(i)(3). Furthermore, Fidlago’s claims 

were not formerly adjudicated. Id. at 61(i)(4). 
2

The Record makes clear that (1) Fidlago was not coerced into accepting the 

plea offer,

6

(2) Trial Counsel’s representation did not fall below an objective 

standard of reasonableness,7and (3) Fidlago knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily admitted he possessed a deadly weapon during the act.8 

Concerning Fidlago’s Motion for Appointment of Postconviction Counsel, 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(3) sets the applicable standard for the 

appointment of postconviction counsel.9 The rule affords the Court discretion to 

appoint counsel only if the following conditions are met: 

(i) the conviction has been affirmed by final order upon direct appellate 

review or direct appellate review is unavailable; (ii) the motion sets 

forth a substantial claim that the movant received ineffective assistance 

of counsel in relation to the plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (iii) 

granting the motion would result in vacatur of the judgment of 

conviction for which the movant is in custody; and (iv) specific 

exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel.10

6

See Plea Colloquy Tr. at 7-14, 24-29, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 7-14, 

24-29, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. The Trial Judge recalls Fidlago’s plea colloquy because he 

told the Court, at the outset, he did not want to accept the plea and felt he was being coerced. Plea 

Colloquy Tr. at 6:11-16, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6:11-16, ID No. 

2112000947, D.I. 15. The Court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Fidlago and emphasized 

repeatedly that he did not have to accept a plea. See Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6-8, 10-11, 12-13, 24-

27, 29, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6-8, 10-11, 12-13, 24-27, 29, ID No. 

2112000947, D.I. 15. 

7

See State’s Resp. at 6, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 19; State’s Resp. at 6, ID No. 2112000947, D.I.

19.

8 Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15:1-17:4, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15:1-17:4, ID 

No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. He is bound to the statements he made during his colloquy. See Palmer 

v. State, 2002 WL 31546531, at *1 (Del. 2002) (citing Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 

1997); Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15, at 28:4-6), ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 28:4-

6, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. (“Have all your answers to the Court today been truthful? . . . 

[ANSWER:] . . . Yes.)

9 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(3).

10 Id.
3

The Rule requires that all conditions stated therein be met, so where a 

defendant fails to meet one condition, he will be ineligible for appointment of 

postconviction counsel.11 Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel fails 

because Fidlago did not file a direct appeal with the Supreme Court; his claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit; and Fidlago has not presented the 

Court with any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of 

counsel.

/s/ Jan R. Jurden

Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Christina M. Davis, DAG

Luis Fidlago

11 State v. Hooker, 2023 WL 2707227, at *3 (Del. Super. Mar. 29, 2023).