Title: Dickerson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 109, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 11, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LATEEF A. DICKERSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 109, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. N1408008905 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Submitted:  August 24, 2018 
 
 
 
 
    Decided:  October 11, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears 
to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Lateef Dickerson, appeals the Superior 
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief.  We find no merit to 
the appeal.  Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Dickerson pled guilty in April 2016 to one 
count each of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Receiving a Stolen 
Firearm, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  In accordance with the parties’ 
plea agreement, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion to declare 
Dickerson a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total period of seventeen 
 
2 
years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving ten years in prison 
for two years at Level III probation.  Dickerson did not file a direct appeal.  In 
October 2016, Dickerson filed a motion for postconviction relief under Superior 
Court Criminal Rule 61.  After receiving trial counsel’s affidavit, additional 
briefing, and transcripts from the guilty plea and sentencing hearings, a Superior 
Court Commissioner issued a report, recommending that Dickerson’s motion be 
denied.1  After review, the Superior Court adopted the Commissioner’s 
recommendation and denied Dickerson’s motion.2  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Dickerson argues that the Superior 
Court erred in denying his Rule 61 motion without first holding an evidentiary 
hearing to determine whether his guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, 
and voluntarily.  Dickerson contends that the plea was the result of coercion by 
his counsel, who told him that he would receive a life sentence if he did not accept 
the plea.3  He asserts that the Superior Court failed to address this argument. 
(4) 
Dickerson is incorrect.  The Commissioner’s report carefully 
reviewed Dickerson’s plea colloquy and concluded that Dickerson had “provided 
no basis to deviate from the [Superior] Court’s decision to accept the plea” as 
                                                 
1 State v. Dickerson, 2018 WL 565302 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2018). 
2 State v. Dickerson, Cr. ID No. N1408008905 (Del. Super. Feb. 20, 2018). 
3 To the extent that Dickerson raised additional claims in the motion that he filed in the Superior 
Court, those claims are deemed to be waived for his failure to argue them in his opening brief 
on appeal.  Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
 
3 
knowing, intelligently, and voluntarily made.4  The Commissioner expressly 
concluded that Dickerson’s argument that his “plea was coerced in any way is 
belied by the record.”5  We agree with that conclusion and find no merit to the 
argument that Dickerson’s trial counsel was ineffective and coerced him into 
pleading guilty.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
 
                                                 
4 State v. Dickerson, 2018 WL 565302, *2. 
5 Id. at *3.