Opinion ID: 2070030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Resentencing Remedied Appeal Right

Text: Middlebrook filed a pro se motion for post conviction relief alleging that his attorney's failure to file a direct appeal after the sentencing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. According to Middlebrook, his attorney disregarded Middlebrook's request to file a direct appeal. Implicitly agreeing with the merits of Middlebrook's claim, the Superior Court vacated Middlebrook's original sentence and reimposed the same sentence for the purpose of allowing him to pursue a direct appeal. Middlebrook then filed a pro se notice of a direct appeal. The Superior Court subsequently appointed Middlebrook's current appellate counsel. With the assistance of that appointed attorney, Middlebrook has pursued this direct appeal. Middlebrook's first argument is that the Supreme Court should have ordered a new trial because his attorney provided ineffective assistance when she did not file a direct appeal following his original sentencing. The State agrees that when a convicted defendant instructs trial counsel to file a direct appeal and trial counsel fails to file the appeal, he or she has provided ineffective assistance. [1] Nevertheless, the State argues that the remedy need not be a new trial. Instead, the State submits that the relief need only provide a remedy that completely rectifies the error. [2] The State's position is correct. In Delaware, two alternative forms of relief are available when trial counsel disregards a client's instruction to file a direct appeal after sentencing in a criminal proceeding. Generally, the trial court will vacate the sentence and then reimpose the same sentence. [3] This allows the defendant thirty days to file a direct appeal because the appeal period begins running anew from the date of the reimposed sentence. [4] The alternative is for the trial court to allow the defendant to raise any issue in a post conviction proceeding that could have been raised on direct appeal. [5] If that post conviction petition is denied, the defendant can file an appeal, thereby receiving the same review he or she would have had in a timely direct appeal. [6] The trial judge in Middlebrook's case selected the first approach and resentenced Middlebrook. This provided a complete remedy for the attorney's failure to file a direct appeal after Middlebrook's original sentencing. Therefore, we have concluded that Middlebrook's first argument is without merit.