Opinion ID: 2296715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Contradictive and Ambiguous Colloquy

Text: Finally, Panuski contends that the Superior Court misled him at sentencing as to which crimes he was entering a plea. Panuski contends that when he admitted to possessing two images of Child Pornography, it was not clear whether he was responding to either `otherwise possesses' under 11 Del. C. § 1109(4) or Possession of Child Pornography under 11 Del. C. § 1111. The sentencing hearing colloquy that Panuski challenges proceeded as follows: Superior Court: I'm putting the defendant to the test. If he is willing to admit to possessing two separate photographs Defense Attorney: He is. Superior Court:then I'm going to sentence him. If he's not, I'm going to vacate the plea and the State can do whatever it wishes to do, including taking him to trial. Defense Attorney: He's willing to admit to possessing two images, Your Honor. Superior Court: Mr. Panuski, would you please stand for a moment. Do you understand that your attorney has said that you are willing to admit that you possessed two different photographs which constitute child pornography? Panuski: Yes, Your Honor. Superior Court: And, in fact, did you? Panuski: Yes, Your Honor. During the plea colloquy itself, defense counsel represented that Panuski was aware that he was pleading guilty to two counts and that each carried a two to twenty-five year sentence. Panuski also acknowledged that the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form was complete and accurate. His plea to two counts of DCP was never vacated. At the sentence hearing, Panuski admitted to possessing two images. Defense counsel has averred that he advised Mr. Panuski of the draconian nature of the statute,that despite its title of `Dealing' in Child Pornography, the statute also punishes persons who merely download and possess images/videos of child pornography. Thus, Panuski understood that admitting to mere possession would subject him to liability under the statute. Accordingly, Panuski's final claim is not supported by the record.