State v. Fiske

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 1706014715
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) v. ) Cr. ID. No. 1706014715 ) ) JEREMY FISKE, ) ) Defendant. )

Submitted: November 26, 2025 Decided: January 28, 2026

COMMISSIONER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED

Kristina Bensley, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

John Edinger, Esquire, counsel for Defendant Jeremy Fiske.

O’CONNOR, Commissioner. This 28th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant Jeremy

Fiske’s pro se Motion for Postconviction Relief, 1 a pro se Motion for Appointment 0F

of Postconviction Counsel, 2 and the record in this matter, the following is my Report 1F

and Recommendation.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 28, 2014, Jeremy Fiske (hereinafter “Defendant”) was arrested by

the Delaware State Police (“DSP”) for Dealing in Child Pornography. 3 On July 31, 2F

2014, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of Possession of Child Pornography and

one count of Unlawful Sexual Contact with a Person Under 18 Years of Age, and

this Court immediately sentenced him. 4 As part of Defendant’s sentence, Defendant 3F

was ordered, inter alia, (a) not to possess or access any device with internet access,

and (b) not to have any contact with the minor victim. 5 4F

On December 14, 2017, Defendant was still on probation from the

aforementioned 2014 sentence Order, and his probation officer conducted an

administrative search at Defendant’s residence in Townsend, Delaware. 6 During 5F

that search, Defendant admitted: (a) he had been accessing the internet to view child

1 State v. Jeremy Fiske, Case No. 1706014715, Docket Item (“D.I.”) 35. Unless specifically noted, all docket item references refer to Superior Court Case No. 1706014715. 2 D.I. 36. 3 See State v. Jeremy Fiske, Case No. 1401016757, D.I. 1. 4 Id. 5 Id., D.I. 14. 6 Fiske, Case No. 1706014715, Adult Complaint and Warrant, p. 7. 2 pornography (in violation of the conditions of his probation) and (b) he possessed

“computer tablets under his mattress.” 7 Based on Defendant’s statements, the 6F

probation officer seized the digital devices from under Defendant’s mattress, and a

subsequent search of those devices by DSP resulted in the recovery of “at least 25

images of child pornography.” 8 7F

As a result of the DSP investigation, on September 18, 2017, the State of

Delaware indicted Defendant for twenty-five counts of Dealing in Child

Pornography. 9 On November 13, 2017, the State of Delaware re-indicted Defendant 8F

for twenty-five counts of Dealing in Child Pornography and one count of Sex

Offender Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child. 10 9F

On February 5, 2018, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of Dealing in Child

Pornography and one count of Sex Offender Unlawful Sexual Contact Against a

Child. 11 This Court deferred Defendant’s sentencing hearing for the completion of 10F

a presentence investigation. 12 On July 27, 2018, this Court imposed an aggregate 11F

sentence of seventy-five years Level V, suspended after serving ten years Level V,

followed by probation. 13 Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. 12F

7 Id. 8 Id., p. 8. 9 D.I. 26. 10 +D.I. 42. 11 D.I. 14. 12 Id. 13 D.I. 17, Sentence Order. 3 On April 1, 2025, Defendant filed an untimely pro se Motion for

Postconviction Relief (“Motion”). 14 In the Motion, Defendant raised three claims. 13F

First, he argued he did not knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. 15 Second, 14F

Defendant claimed his attorney provided ineffective representation by pressured him

to plead guilty without a full understanding of what he was pleading to. Finally,

Defendant asserted he was factually innocent because “the judge clearly [had] no

idea who the supposed victim [was].” 16 These claims will be addressed infra. 15F

II. DISCUSSION

A. MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

Superior Court Criminal Rule (“Rule”) 61 provides an individual with a

limited opportunity to seek postconviction relief. 17 The purpose of postconviction 16F

relief is “to correct errors in the trial process, not to allow defendants unlimited

opportunities to relitigate their convictions.” 18 Before considering the merits of any 17F

postconviction relief motion, this Court must first apply Rule 61’s procedural bars.

A motion for postconviction relief can be procedurally barred as untimely filed,

repetitive, formerly adjudicated, or procedurally defaulted. 19 The bars to relief also 18F

14 D.I. 35. 15 D.I. 35, p. 3. 16 Id. 17 State v. Washington, 2021 WL 5232259, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2021), aff’d, Washington v. State, 275 A.3d 1258 (Del. 2022). 18 Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 811, 820 (Del. 2013). 19 Washington, 2021 WL 5232259, at *4. 4 do not apply to claims raised after a trial resulting in a conviction where (a) this

Court lacked jurisdiction, or (b) it is pled with particularity that new evidence exists

which creates a strong inference of actual innocence. 20 1 F

1. Procedural Bars

Applying Rule 61’s procedural bars here, Defendant’s Motion is untimely

filed pursuant to Rule 61(i)(1) by more than five years. To have filed a timely

postconviction motion, Defendant would have had to file a motion with this Court

on or before August 26, 2019 – one year and thirty days after this Court imposed

sentence. 21 20F

Rule 61(i)(1) also permits a litigant to file a motion for postconviction relief

more than one year after the judgment of conviction is final if the motion “asserts a

retroactively applicable right that is newly recognized after the judgment of

conviction is final, more than one year after the right is first recognized by the

Supreme Court of Delaware or by the United States Supreme Court.” 22 However, 21F

Defendant has not claimed this exception to avoid the procedural default. 23 22F

Therefore, Defendant’s motion is subject to summary dismissal.

20 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2). 21 Rule 61(i)(1) provides that a postconviction relief motion cannot be filed more than one year after the judgement of conviction is final. And, as Defendant did not file a direct appeal, the judgment of conviction became final thirty days after this Court imposed sentence. See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(m)(1)(i). 22 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(1). This exception is inapplicable here, as Defendant entered a plea and was not convicted after a trial. 23 Id. 5 In addition to Rule 61(i)(1)’s procedural bar, Rule 61(i)(3) applies to

individual claims raised by a defendant. It prohibits the filing of “any ground for

relief not asserted in the proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction . . . unless

the movant shows cause for relief from the procedural default, or prejudice from a

violation of the movant’s rights.” 24 Rule 61(i)(3)’s procedural bar applies to 2 F

Defendant’s first and third claims for relief as he failed to raise these claims in the

proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction. Rule 61(i)(3) also includes an

exception to its procedural bar if Defendant provides cause for relief from the

procedural default or prejudice as required by Rule 61(i)(3)(A)&(B), but Defendant

did not assert this exception to preclude the application of Rule 61(i)(3). Therefore,

claims one and three are subject to summary dismissal for a second, independent

reason.

Finally, Rule 61(i)(5) allows a defendant to avoid the application of the

aforementioned procedural bars where a defendant claims this Court lacked

jurisdiction, or a claim that satisfies the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)(i)-

(ii). 25 Defendant’s Motion does not identify a jurisdictional defect, nor was he 4F

convicted after a trial, so he cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule

61(d)(2). 26 Therefore, Defendant’s Motion remains subject to summary dismissal. 2 F

24 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(3). 25 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 26 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2)(i) – (ii). 6 Even if Defendant’s Motion were not subject to summary dismissal,

Defendant’s claims are meritless. Each of the claims are briefly considered below.

b. Consideration of Defendant’s claims.

Defendant first claims he did not knowingly or voluntarily plead guilty – he

states in conclusory fashion that he did not know what crimes he was pleading guilty

to. But, the record of his plea and sentencing proves otherwise.

First, prior to entering the plea, Defendant completed the Truth In Sentencing

Guilty Plea Form (“TIS Form”). 27 On the TIS Form, Defendant denied being under 26F

the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the plea, and when entering the plea,

he acknowledged he was freely and voluntarily plead guilty to the charged offenses

in the Plea Agreement; he affirmed had not been promised anything not listed on the

Plea Agreement; he confirmed neither his counsel, the State, nor anyone else

threatened or forced him to enter the plea; he read and understood all of the

information on the TIS Form; and he acknowledged in writing that all of his answers

on the TIS Form were truthful. 28 27F

Moreover, during the February 5, 2018 plea colloquy, counsel for Defendant

informed this Court that he believed Defendant was entering the plea knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily, and Defendant confirmed same on the record. 29 This 28F

27 D.I. 14. 28 Id. 29 D.I. 42, 6:3-23. 7 Court then reviewed each of the charges Defendant was pleading guilty to, and

Defendant pled guilty to each charge admitting he did, in fact, commit those

offenses. 30 This Court also confirmed Defendant reviewed the Plea Agreement and 2 F

the TIS Form with counsel, and Defendant acknowledged he understood the content

of the forms, reviewed the forms with counsel, and any questions he may have had

were answered by counsel to his satisfaction. 31 Finally, Defendant affirmed again 30F

that no one forced or threatened him to enter the guilty plea. 32 31F

It is well established that a defendant is bound by statements they made during

a plea colloquy. 33 Defendant’s belated claims of entering an unknowing and 32F

involuntary plea, or his assertion that his attorney compelled him to plead guilty

without a full understanding of what he was pleading guilty to, or that he entered the

plea under threat or coercion, are all unsupported by the record. In fact, the contents

of the TIS Form, the Plea Agreement, and the transcript of the February 5, 2018 plea

colloquy prove otherwise. Defendant’s claims to the contrary, more than five years

after entering the plea, are simply not credible. 34 33F

30 Id., 10:6 – 13:1. 31 Id., 15:15 – 16:21. 32 Id., 16:17 – 21. 33 Palmer v. State, 2002 WL 31546531, at *1 (Del. 2002), (citing Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997)). 34 To the extent Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim need be addressed further – that trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel threatened or pushed him to plead guilty – the record does not support Defendant’s claim. 8 Finally, Defendant raises a claim of factual innocence, despite admitting on

the record that he, in fact, committed the crimes he pled guilty to. To establish this

claim, Defendant indicates “in my sentencing transcript on page 14, line 22, the

judge clearly has no idea who the supposed victim is, misapprehending it as to N.H.

when it was already established, I only contacted N.H. on Facebook.” 35 Defendant34F

confuses the entry of his guilty plea to comments made by the sentencing judge on

a later date, and even if the judge’s sentencing comments suggested the judge was

confused (and they do not), that does not rise to a claim of factual innocence. As is

discussed below, Defendant’s claim is meritless.

During the plea colloquy, Defendant pled guilty to Count 26 – Sex Offender

Unlawful Sexual Contact Against a Child. 36 The Reindictment, tracking 11 Del. C. 3 F

Section 777A of the Delaware Code, provides as follows:

JEREMY FISKE, on or between the 23rd day of August 2016 and the 14th day of February, 2017, in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, being a sex offender, did knowingly commit Dealing in Child Pornography, a sexual offense as defined in Section 761(h) of Title 11 of the Delaware Code, as amended, while being a Tier II registered sex offender as a result of a conviction in case number 1401016757 for Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, on or about the 31st day of July, 2014.

35 D.I. 35, p. 3. To prevent disclosure of the identity of Defendant’s prior victim, initials are substituted by the Court. 36 D.I. 14. 9 When Defendant entered the plea to this charge on February 5, 2018, this Court read

him the statutory language from the Reindictment. 37 And, during the plea colloquy, 36F

Defendant affirmed that he both understood that charge and plead guilty to it because

he did, in fact, commit that charged offense. 38 Defendant now argues factual 37F

innocence based on a comment from the sentencing judge regarding contact

Defendant had with N.H., but the record does not support Defendant’s factual

innocence claim.

At the sentencing hearing on July 27, 2018, the State alerted the Court to the

fact that a condition of Defendant’s 2014 sentence Order was that he was to have no

unlawful contact with the minor victim of the 2014 investigation and prosecution. 39 38F

The same minor victim was briefly discussed in Defendant’s 2018 sentencing

hearing because the mother of the minor victim kickstarted the law enforcement

investigation when she contacted the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force

(“Task Force”) to advise them Defendant contacted her minor son multiple times in

violation of the 2014 no-contact order. 40 Following up on the mother’s report, a 39F

detective from the Task Force contacted Defendant’s probation officer, who then

conducted an administrative search – resulting in Defendant’s incriminating

37 D.I. 42, 11:19 – 12:15. 38 Id., 12:13 – 13:1. 39 D.I. 33, 4:5 – 11. 40 Id., 4:12 – 18. 10 statements as well as the aforementioned seizure of digital devices supporting the

2017 prosecution. 41 At Defendant’s 2018 sentencing, the State suggested to the 40F

Court that Defendant’s prohibited contact with the minor victim should be

considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. 42 41F

Once the State concluded its sentencing comments, the Court asked the State

whether N.H. was the prior victim from the 2014 prosecution, as contact with N.H.

was a violation of a condition of his former probationary sentence. 43 The State 42F

confirmed N.H. was the same victim. A short time later, the Court identified several

potential mitigating factors under SENTAC: Defendant demonstrated remorse, he

cooperated with the investigation, and accepted responsibility for his actions. When

this Court afforded Defendant an opportunity to speak, the Judge asked him if he

“knew it was wrong to contact N.H. again?” – a clear reference to the State’s

comment that N.H.’s mother contacted law enforcement because Defendant was in

violation of the no-contact order. Defendant then acknowledged it was wrong to

contact the victim, and explained he contacted the minor victim to tell him he was

sorry. 44 43F

41 Id., 4:19 – 5:1. 42 Id., 6:4 – 7; 8:1 – 6. 43 Id., 8:13 – 22. 44 Id., 14: 1 – 5. 11 Prior to imposing sentence, this Court acknowledged several aggravating

factors (repetitive criminal conduct, vulnerability of the victim, offense against a

child, and undue depreciation of the offense), and a mitigating factor – Defendant’s

treatment needs. But this Court’s statement – that it was “very concerning to the

Court that it’s the same person [N.H.]” – neither reflects confusion nor that

Defendant is factually innocent. In fact, N.H. is not identified in Count 26, and

identifying a specific victim is not an element of that crime. The State’s sentencing

comments established Defendant’s probation officer was alerted to the fact that

Defendant had contacted N.H., violating his probation, and this Court expressed

concern that Defendant contacted N.H. after he was specifically ordered not to do

so. Defendant’s claim of factual innocence is meritless and unsupported by the

record.

B. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL

As noted above, Defendant also filed a pro se motion for appointment of

postconviction counsel. 45 44F Rule 61(e)(3) sets the applicable standard for the

appointment of postconviction counsel, providing this Court discretion to appoint

postconviction counsel, so long as all conditions of the Rule are met. 46 The Rule 45F

provides:

45 D.I. 36. 46 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(3). 12 The judge may appoint counsel for an indigent movant's first timely postconviction motion and request for appointment of counsel if the motion seeks to set aside a judgment of conviction that resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere only if the judge determines that: (i) the conviction has been affirmed by final order upon direct appellate review or direct appellate review is unavailable; (ii) the motion sets forth a substantial claim that the movant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (iii) granting the motion would result in vacatur of the judgment of conviction for which the movant is in custody; and (iv) specific exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel. 4746F

Where a Defendant fails to meet any of the stated conditions found in the Rule,

they are ineligible for appointment of postconviction counsel. Here, Defendant did

not satisfy many elements of the Rule. Defendant did not file a direct appeal with

the Delaware Supreme Court; his claims, including the ineffective assistance of

counsel claim, are meritless and unsupported by the record; and Defendant failed to

assert any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel.

Therefore, Defendant is ineligible for appointment of postconviction counsel.

47 Id. 13 III. CONCLUSION

For all the aforestated reasons, I recommend Defendant’s Motion for the

Appointment of Postconviction Counsel be DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for

Postconviction Relief be SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

/s/ Martin B. O’Connor Commissioner oc: Prothonotary