Court Opinion

ID: 9398248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 17:05:22.366768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.753305
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 MICHAEL SCAGGS,                          §
                                          §
       Defendant Below,                   §   No. 390, 2022
       Appellant,                         §
                                          §   Court Below—Superior Court
       v.                                 §   of the State of Delaware
                                          §
 STATE OF DELAWARE,                       §   Cr. ID No. 1907004508 (N)
                                          §
       Appellee.                          §

                          Submitted: May 15, 2023
                          Decided:   May 30, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                   ORDER

      After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

      (1)    A grand jury indicted the appellant, Michael Scaggs, on three counts of

first-degree rape, eight counts of second-degree rape, continuous sexual abuse of a

child, sexual solicitation of a child, and other offenses. The charges arose from

Scaggs’s sexual abuse of a young household member over a period of approximately

eight years, until the child disclosed the abuse when she was about fourteen years

old. On October 4, 2021, Scaggs pleaded guilty to first-degree rape, continuous

sexual abuse of a child, and sexual solicitation of a child. In exchange for the guilty
plea, the State dismissed the other charges, agreed not to seek enhanced sentencing

under 11 Del. C. § 4205A,1 and agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at

twenty-five years. On March 25, 2022, the Superior Court sentenced Scaggs to life

in prison for first-degree rape and to twenty-five years of imprisonment, suspended

after ten years for decreasing levels of supervision, for each of the other two offenses

to which Scaggs pleaded guilty.

       (2)    Scaggs did not file a direct appeal, but defense counsel filed, on his

behalf, a timely motion for modification of sentence under Superior Court Criminal

Rule 35. The motion asked the court to reconsider the mitigation factors that the

defense had presented and to reconsider and give great weight to the fact that the

defendant had entered into a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend

no more than twenty-five years of imprisonment. On April 27, 2022, the Superior

Court denied the motion, stating that the court had reconsidered all the factors

presented and again determined that the sentence was appropriate. On September

12, 2022, Scaggs filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief in which he asserted

that his “court appointed attorney failed to file an appeal” and, more specifically,

that he “waited 4 months for word of an appeal to find out my counsel never filed

an appeal on my behalf after the rule 35 was denied as we discussed.” He further

1
 See 11 Del. C. § 4205A (providing for enhanced sentencing for certain sexual offenses against
young children, upon application by the State).

                                              2
asserted that he had written to his counsel on August 8, 2022, and “[i]t is now 9-8-

22 and there has been no reply.” The Superior Court resolved the motion for

postconviction relief in a letter order dated September 27, 2022, in which the court

determined that the relief that Scaggs sought was the opportunity to appeal the denial

of the motion for sentence modification. The court concluded that vacating and

reissuing the order denying the motion for sentence modification would provide the

requested relief. The court therefore entered orders vacating and reissuing its April

27, 2022 order denying the motion for sentence modification. Appellate counsel

from the Office of Defense Services then filed this appeal from the denial of the

motion for sentence modification on Scaggs’s behalf.

      (3)    On appeal, counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under

Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious review

of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit. In her statement filed

under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that she informed Scaggs of the provisions of

Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the

accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Scaggs of his right to submit points he

wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Scaggs has not submitted any points for

the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues

that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.

                                          3
       (4)    When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief

under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.2 This

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary

presentation.”3

       (5)    The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the

appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and

the law and properly determined that Scaggs could not raise a meritorious claim on

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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                               Chief Justice

2
  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S.
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
3
  Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.

                                             4