Opinion ID: 6323713
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guilty Plea And Sentencing

Text: (2) After Hunt pleaded guilty to manslaughter and agreed to testify at the trial of any co-defendant, Morrison pleaded guilty to second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“PFDCF”) on November 3, 2017. The Superior Court ordered a pre-sentence investigation. (3) In mid-December, Morrison began sending letters to the Superior Court expressing his desire to withdraw his guilty plea. The Superior Court forwarded Morrison’s letters to his trial counsel. On February 8, 2018, Morrison’s trial counsel advised the Superior Court judge originally assigned to the case (a different Superior Court judge accepted the guilty plea because the originally assigned judge was unavailable) that: The defendant is claiming that my representation of him in this matter was ineffective, resulting in him accepting a plea that he would not have enter [sic] but for my ineffectiveness as his attorney. Based upon this claim, he has instructed me to file a motion to withdraw his plea agreement. Since he has raised a claim that I was ineffective in his representation, I am asking the Office of Conflict Counsel to assign a new attorney to review this matter. Please accept this email as my request to continue Morrison’s sentencing scheduled for tomorrow.1 (4) The Superior Court re-scheduled sentencing for February 16, 2018.2 Because the judge originally assigned to the matter remained unavailable, the Superior Court judge who accepted Morrison’s guilty plea presided over his sentencing. Morrison’s trial counsel, who had not been replaced with new counsel, 1 Email filed on February 9, 2018, D.I. 38 (Del. Super. Ct.). 2 The sentencing order incorrectly states that sentencing occurred on January 12, 2018 instead of February 16, 2018. 2 told the Superior Court that Morrison wished to withdraw his plea, but that he did not find any basis for a motion to withdraw Morrison’s guilty plea. He further stated that he had advised Morrison ineffective assistance claims should be raised in a Rule 61 motion and that Morrison would have to pursue a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pro se. (5) The Superior Court then asked Morrison if he wished to proceed without counsel at sentencing, and Morrison explained that he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. The Superior Court questioned the basis for such a motion, reminded Morrison of his representations during the plea colloquy, and told Morrison that he could raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a Rule 61 motion. Morrison eventually agreed to proceed with sentencing with his trial counsel’s assistance. The Superior Court sentenced Morrison to twenty-eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after twenty years for two years of Level III probation. Morrison did not file a direct appeal.