Opinion
No. 478, 2002
Submitted: December 13, 2002
Decided: March 4, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County in Cr. ID No. 0110019665.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
This 4th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In December 2001, Martin W. Lecates was indicted by a Sussex County grand jury on charges of Rape in the Second Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree. On July 18, 2002, Lecates pleaded guilty to Rape in the Second Degree. He was sentenced to twenty years at Level V, suspended after ten years, for one year at Level IV Home Confinement, followed by nine years at Level III probation.
(2) Lecates' counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Lecates' counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Lecates' counsel informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Lecates with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Lecates also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.
(3) As reflected in the Rule 26(c) brief, Lecates submitted to his counsel a handwritten document that appears to raise the following issues: (i) ineffective assistance of counsel leading to involuntary guilty plea, and (ii) police misconduct. The State has responded to Lecates' points, as well as to the position taken by Lecates' counsel, and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision.
(4) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold. First, this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.
Second, this Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
(5) This Court will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal. Accordingly, we will not review Lecates' ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this appeal.
Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996).
(6) The record is clear that the Superior Court conducted a careful and complete guilty plea colloquy prior to accepting Lecates' guilty plea. A properly entered plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of all errors or defects occurring before the plea. Lecates cannot now complain of any alleged errors that occurred prior to the entry of his guilty plea.
See Howard v. State, 458 A.2d 1180, 1185 (1983) (listing required elements of plea colloquy).
Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309 (1988); Russell v. State, 1999 WL 507303 (Del.Supr.).
(7) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Lecates' appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Lecates' counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Lecates could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.