IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL SELBY, § § Defendant Below- § No. 114, 2014 Appellant, § § v. § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. ID No. 1202018860 Plaintiff Below- § Appellee. §
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the appellant's
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State's response, and the record below, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) On December 11, 2012, the appellant, Michael Selby, pled guilty to
Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of
a Felony. Although not reflected on the docket, Selby appears to have submitted a
pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in January 2013. On March 7, 2013,
Selby’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to withdraw as
counsel. The Superior Court denied the motion on April 25, 2013. New counsel
was assigned to represent Selby and filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on July 19, 2013. The Superior Court denied the second motion to withdraw the
guilty plea on October 15, 2013, finding there was no procedural default in the plea
proceedings, Selby knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea, his assertion of
innocence was contrary to his statements at the plea colloquy and the evidence, his
counsel advocated for him, and allowing withdrawal of the plea would result in a
trial years after the shooting that led to the charges and prejudice the State. On
January 31, 2014 Selby was sentenced as follows: (i) for Assault in the First
Degree, fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after seven years for
decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony, three years of Level V incarceration. This is Selby’s
direct appeal.
(2) On appeal, Selby’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”). Counsel asserts that,
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. By letter, Counsel informed Selby of the provisions of Rule
26(c) and provided Selby with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the
accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Selby of his right to identify any
points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Selby has raised several issues
for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the issues raised by
Selby and asked this Court to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
2 (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii)
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.1
(4) On appeal, Selby argues that the Superior Court erred in denying his
motions to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was coerced and
involuntary. In support of this argument, Selby claims that: (i) the transcript of the
plea hearing reflects a pause during which he told his counsel that he did not want
to accept the plea and his counsel told him not to say anything; (ii) the Superior
Court judge who accepted his guilty plea prefers pleas to trials; and (iii) the yes
and no boxes on the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form asking if anyone had
threatened or forced him to enter the plea were not marked. Selby also claims that
his plea agreement was not fulfilled.
(5) We review the Superior Court’s denial of Selby’s motion to withdraw
his guilty plea for abuse of discretion.2 Upon moving to withdraw his guilty plea,
Selby had the burden of establishing a fair and just reason to permit withdrawal of
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 2 Chavous v. State, 953 A.2d 282, 285 (Del. 2008).
3 the plea.3 Withdrawal of the plea should only be permitted “where the judge
determines ‘the plea was not voluntarily entered or was entered because of
misapprehension or mistake of defendant as to his legal rights.’”4
(6) The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that Selby told the Superior
Court he freely and voluntarily pled guilty to the charges listed in the plea
agreement, he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, nobody threatened or
forced him to accept the guilty plea, he understood the consequences of pleading
guilty, he had sufficient time to discuss the case, possible defenses, and the plea
agreement with his counsel, and he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation.
Similarly, Selby indicated in the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form that he had
freely and voluntarily decided to plead guilty and that he understood he was
waiving certain rights as a result of pleading guilty. Absent clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary, Selby is bound by these representations.5
(7) Selby’s claims of coercion are without merit. First, there is no
indication in the plea colloquy transcript that Selby told his counsel that he did not
wish to accept the guilty plea during the plea colloquy. Selby’s responses to the
Superior Court’s questions during the plea colloquy are contrary to such a claim.
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d). 4 Scarborough v. State, 938 A.2d 644, 650 (Del. 2007) (quoting State v. Insley, 141 A.2d 619, 622 (Del. 1958)). 5 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).
4 This claim is also contrary to Selby’s contention in his July 17, 2013 motion to
withdraw that he chose to plead guilty because he did not believe his counsel was
prepared for trial and he intended to withdraw his guilty plea later. Second, Selby
claims that the Superior Court judge who accepted his guilty plea prefers guilty
pleas to trials, but cites nothing in the record to suggest that the judge pressured
him to plead guilty rather than proceed to trial. Third, while the yes and no boxes
on the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form asking if anyone had threatened or
forced Selby to enter the plea were not marked, the Superior Court asked Selby
during the plea colloquy if anyone threatened or forced him to accept the plea and
he stated no. The record establishes that Selby entered his guilty plea voluntarily
and was not operating under any misapprehension or mistake regarding his legal
rights. Under the circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in denying Selby’s
motions to withdraw his guilty plea.
(8) Finally, Selby contends that his plea agreement has not been fulfilled.
Selby was originally charged with Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery
in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MICHAEL SELBY, § § Defendant Below- § No. 114, 2014 Appellant, § § v. § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. ID No. 1202018860 Plaintiff Below- § Appellee. §
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 9, 2014
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of September 2014, upon consideration of the appellant's
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State's response, and the record below, it
appears to the Court that:
(1) On December 11, 2012, the appellant, Michael Selby, pled guilty to
Assault in the First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of
a Felony. Although not reflected on the docket, Selby appears to have submitted a
pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea in January 2013. On March 7, 2013,
Selby’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to withdraw as
counsel. The Superior Court denied the motion on April 25, 2013. New counsel
was assigned to represent Selby and filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on July 19, 2013. The Superior Court denied the second motion to withdraw the
guilty plea on October 15, 2013, finding there was no procedural default in the plea
proceedings, Selby knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea, his assertion of
innocence was contrary to his statements at the plea colloquy and the evidence, his
counsel advocated for him, and allowing withdrawal of the plea would result in a
trial years after the shooting that led to the charges and prejudice the State. On
January 31, 2014 Selby was sentenced as follows: (i) for Assault in the First
Degree, fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after seven years for
decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for Possession of a Firearm During the
Commission of a Felony, three years of Level V incarceration. This is Selby’s
direct appeal.
(2) On appeal, Selby’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”). Counsel asserts that,
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. By letter, Counsel informed Selby of the provisions of Rule
26(c) and provided Selby with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the
accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Selby of his right to identify any
points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Selby has raised several issues
for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the issues raised by
Selby and asked this Court to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
2 (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii)
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.1
(4) On appeal, Selby argues that the Superior Court erred in denying his
motions to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was coerced and
involuntary. In support of this argument, Selby claims that: (i) the transcript of the
plea hearing reflects a pause during which he told his counsel that he did not want
to accept the plea and his counsel told him not to say anything; (ii) the Superior
Court judge who accepted his guilty plea prefers pleas to trials; and (iii) the yes
and no boxes on the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form asking if anyone had
threatened or forced him to enter the plea were not marked. Selby also claims that
his plea agreement was not fulfilled.
(5) We review the Superior Court’s denial of Selby’s motion to withdraw
his guilty plea for abuse of discretion.2 Upon moving to withdraw his guilty plea,
Selby had the burden of establishing a fair and just reason to permit withdrawal of
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 2 Chavous v. State, 953 A.2d 282, 285 (Del. 2008).
3 the plea.3 Withdrawal of the plea should only be permitted “where the judge
determines ‘the plea was not voluntarily entered or was entered because of
misapprehension or mistake of defendant as to his legal rights.’”4
(6) The transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that Selby told the Superior
Court he freely and voluntarily pled guilty to the charges listed in the plea
agreement, he was pleading guilty because he was guilty, nobody threatened or
forced him to accept the guilty plea, he understood the consequences of pleading
guilty, he had sufficient time to discuss the case, possible defenses, and the plea
agreement with his counsel, and he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation.
Similarly, Selby indicated in the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form that he had
freely and voluntarily decided to plead guilty and that he understood he was
waiving certain rights as a result of pleading guilty. Absent clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary, Selby is bound by these representations.5
(7) Selby’s claims of coercion are without merit. First, there is no
indication in the plea colloquy transcript that Selby told his counsel that he did not
wish to accept the guilty plea during the plea colloquy. Selby’s responses to the
Superior Court’s questions during the plea colloquy are contrary to such a claim.
3 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 32(d). 4 Scarborough v. State, 938 A.2d 644, 650 (Del. 2007) (quoting State v. Insley, 141 A.2d 619, 622 (Del. 1958)). 5 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).
4 This claim is also contrary to Selby’s contention in his July 17, 2013 motion to
withdraw that he chose to plead guilty because he did not believe his counsel was
prepared for trial and he intended to withdraw his guilty plea later. Second, Selby
claims that the Superior Court judge who accepted his guilty plea prefers guilty
pleas to trials, but cites nothing in the record to suggest that the judge pressured
him to plead guilty rather than proceed to trial. Third, while the yes and no boxes
on the Truth-In-Sentencing Guilty Plea form asking if anyone had threatened or
forced Selby to enter the plea were not marked, the Superior Court asked Selby
during the plea colloquy if anyone threatened or forced him to accept the plea and
he stated no. The record establishes that Selby entered his guilty plea voluntarily
and was not operating under any misapprehension or mistake regarding his legal
rights. Under the circumstances, the Superior Court did not err in denying Selby’s
motions to withdraw his guilty plea.
(8) Finally, Selby contends that his plea agreement has not been fulfilled.
Selby was originally charged with Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Robbery
in the First Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly
Weapon by a Person Prohibited and two counts of Possession of a Firearm During
the Commission of a Felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Selby pled guilty to
Assault in the First Degree as a lesser included offense of Attempted Murder in the
First Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and
5 the State entered a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. The parties requested
a pre-sentence investigation which was available to the Superior Court before
sentencing. Selby provides no details or explanation concerning how his plea
agreement has allegedly been unfulfilled. Accordingly, this claim is without merit.
(9) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
the remainder of Selby’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any
arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Selby’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined
that Selby could not raise a meritorious claim in this 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/ Randy J. Holland Justice