Title: Soto v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 607, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 18, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRANCISCO SOTO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 607, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1710001432 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   April 30, 2019 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 18, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court 
concludes that: 
(1) 
In January 2018, the appellant, Francisco Soto, was indicted for 
multiple crimes including Rape in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in 
the First Degree.  On July 30, 2018, Soto pled no contest to two counts of Unlawful 
Sexual Contact in the First Degree in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the 
remaining charges.  The State also agreed not to recommend more than eight years 
of unsuspended Level V incarceration.  On November 30, 2018, the Superior Court 
sentenced Soto, effective October 5, 2017, as follows: (i) for the first count of 
2 
 
Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree, eight years of Level V incarceration 
suspended after four years for decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for the 
second count of Unlawful Sexual Contact, eight years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after four years for two years of Level III probation.  This appeal 
followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Soto’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  Counsel informed Soto of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Soto 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Soto of his right to identify any points he wished 
this Court to consider on appeal.  Soto has submitted arguments for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to Soto’s arguments and has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally 
3 
 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an 
adversary presentation.1   
(5) 
Soto’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) his plea 
was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (ii) the charges were based on hearsay 
and conflicting evidence; (iii) a stranger was permitted to speak at his sentencing, 
but his family was not; (iv) his sentence violated the Sentencing Accountability 
Commission (“SENTAC”) guidelines and the Eighth Amendment prohibition 
against cruel and unusual punishment; and (v) his counsel was ineffective.  We do 
not address Soto’s ineffective assistance claims because we do not consider such 
claims for the first time on direct appeal.2  After careful consideration of the 
remaining claims, we find no merit to Soto’s appeal. 
(6) 
The record reflects that Soto’s no contest plea was knowing, intelligent, 
and voluntary.  During the plea colloquy, Soto affirmed that he had reviewed and 
discussed the plea agreement and Truth–In–Sentencing Guilty Plea form3 with his 
counsel.  Soto further affirmed that he understood that he could be sentenced to up 
to 16 years in prison, that no one promised him what his sentence would be, and that 
the State  had enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 
                                               
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
2 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
3 The references to “guilty” were stricken and replaced with “no contest.”  Appendix to State’s 
Response at B12-13. 
4 
 
Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First Degree.  In the Truth-in-Sentencing form, Soto 
indicated that he freely and voluntarily decided to plead no contest and that he 
understood he was waiving certain constitutional rights, including his right to 
question the witnesses against him and present evidence in his own defense.  Absent 
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, which he has not identified, Soto is 
bound by his representations during the plea colloquy and in the Truth-in-Sentencing 
Guilty Plea Form.4  As a result of his knowing, intelligent, and voluntary no-contest 
plea, Soto waived his right to challenge the evidence against him.5   
(7) 
The “stranger” who spoke at Soto’s sentencing was the stepfather of the 
two children with whom Soto was alleged to have had unlawful sexual contact.  Soto 
did not object to the children’s stepfather speaking or ask that his own family 
members speak on his behalf.  This claim is without merit.   
(8) 
Finally, the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.  The 
sentence was neither excessive nor grossly disproportionate.6  The Superior Court 
could have sentenced Soto to up to sixteen years of unsuspended Level V time,7 but 
instead sentenced him to eight years of unsuspended Level V time.  As to Soto’s 
                                               
 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
5 Alexander v. State, 2008 WL 4809624, at *1 (Del. Nov. 5, 2008); Ayres v. State, 2002 WL 
1836600, at *1 (Del. Aug. 9, 2002). 
6 Wallace v. State, 956 A.2d 630, 639 (Del. 2008) (“The Eighth Amendment has been interpreted 
to prohibit only punishments that are disproportionate to the crime or are excessive.”). 
7 11 Del. C. § 769(b) (“Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree is a class D felony.”); 11 Del. 
C. § 4201(b)(4) (providing that the maximum penalty for a class D felony is eight years of 
imprisonment). 
5 
 
claim that his sentence violated SENTAC guidelines, the guidelines are non-binding 
and do not provide a basis for appeal of a sentence that is within statutory authorized 
limits as in this case.8    
(9) 
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Soto’s appeal 
is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We also are 
satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
law and has properly determined that Soto could not raise a meritorious claim in this 
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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                               
 
8 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997).