Title: Evans v. Perillo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 292, 2000
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 14, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM JOHN EVANS, 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. 292, 2000 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
) 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
NANCY JANE PERILLO, 
 
) 
C.A. No. 00C-02-24 RRC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  December 14, 2000 
Decided:  February 14, 2001 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
This 14th day of February 2001, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties, it appears to the Court that: 
1. 
William John Evans appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court 
dismissing his malpractice complaint against Nancy Perillo.  Evans argues that the 
Superior Court should have granted him the opportunity to correct deficiencies in 
his complaint, that he produced a sufficient claim to withstand a motion to dismiss, 
that he did not waive a legal malpractice claim by signing a plea agreement and 
that the dismissal violated his constitutional right of equal protection.  
2. 
This Court conducts a de novo review of Motions to Dismiss.  All 
well-pled allegations will be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving 
 
2 
party.1  The complaint sufficiently states a cause of action when a plaintiff can 
recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof 
under the complaint.2 
3. 
On April 1, 1998, Evans pleaded guilty to three counts of first degree 
arson, first degree reckless endangering and insurance fraud involving a fire that 
destroyed his apartment in 1994.  In exchange for the plea, the State dismissed 
pending arson and insurance fraud charges involving a 1991 fire that destroyed 
Evans’ pickup truck that he had earlier reported stolen.   
4. 
Nancy Perillo, an Assistant Public Defender, represented Evans when 
he entered the plea agreement.  After entering his plea pursuant to his plea 
agreement, Evans filed a civil complaint alleging malpractice against Perillo.  His 
complaint prays for $6,000,000 in compensatory damages.  Evans alleged that 
Perillo negligently violated several American Bar Association Standards, failed to 
act diligently, failed to keep Evans informed, failed to conduct a prompt 
investigation, failed to comply with appropriate discovery procedures and 
conspired with the prosecution to find him guilty. 
5. 
The Superior Court found that Perillo’s actions were protected by 
qualified immunity and that Evans did not plead facts which showed that his  
                                                 
1 Kershaw Excavating v. City Systems Inc., Del. Supr., 581 A.2d 1111 (1990). 
2 Browne v. Robb, Del. Supr., 396 A.2d 967 (1990). 
 
3 
attorney’s actions constituted gross negligence or were motivated by bad faith.   
6. 
The Superior Court found no grounds upon which it could grant 
Evans relief based on the allegations in his complaint.  The Superior Court found 
that Evans did not substantiate with facts that Perillo violated ABA Standards.  The 
Superior Court found no facts alleged which raised an issue that Perillo failed to 
act diligently and that Evans did not specify the materials and discovery that 
Perillo allegedly failed to provide him.  Finally, the Superior Court found that 
Evans did not allege any specific facts supporting his conspiracy claim. 
7. 
The Superior Court found that Evans understood the plea agreement 
he signed and that Evans entered the plea agreement knowingly, voluntarily and 
intelligently.  The Superior Court found that Evans waived his claim for any 
Constitutional violations because “a properly entered plea of guilty constitutes a 
waiver of all errors or defects occurring before the plea[.]3   
8. 
To the extent that the civil complaint below claims fairly that granting 
public defenders qualified immunity of any kind deprives the “economically 
challenged” the right to equal protection of the law, that agreement was never 
made to the Superior Court and may not be taken up in the first instance on 
appeal.4  The interests of justice exception to this well established practice does 
                                                 
3 Fullman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 285, 1988, Christie, C.J. (Feb. 2, 1989) (ORDER) (citing 
State v. Stoesser, Del. Super., 183 A.2d 824, 825 (1962). 
4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
 
4 
not, in the absence of any cited authority, suggest any change in Delaware case 
law.5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, for the reasons stated above, the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 See Vick v. Haller, Del. Supr., No. 149, 1986, Christie, J. (March 2, 1987) (Order).