Opinion
ID 2111014013 2112000947
06-27-2023
STATE OF DELAWARE, v. LUIS FIDLAGO, Defendant.
Submitted: June 23, 2023
ORDER
Jan R. Jurden, President Judge
AND NOW TO WIT, this 27th day of June 2023, the Court having duly considered Defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, Defendant's Letter Motion for Appointment of Postconviction Counsel, Defendant's Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief, the State's Response, Superior Court Criminal Rule 61,and the Record in these cases, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are DENIED as meritless for the following reasons:
ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 10; ID No. 2112000947, D.I.
ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 17; ID No. 2112000947, D.I.
ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 18; ID No. 2112000947, D.I.
ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 19; ID No. 2112000947, D.I.
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61. This Order addresses the merits of Fidlago's motion because it is not procedurally barred by the rules. First, Fidlago' was sentenced in December 2022, and he did not file a direct appeal with the Supreme Court; therefore, his motion was timely filed. Id. at 61(i)(1). Second, this is Fidlago's first postconviction motion, so it is not barred as repetitive. Id. at 61(i)(2). Third, Fidlago alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, which could not have been raised on direct appeal, so his motion is not procedurally defaulted. Id. at 61(i)(3). Furthermore, Fidlago's claims were not formerly adjudicated. Id. at 61(i)(4).
The Record makes clear that (1) Fidlago was not coerced into accepting the plea offer, (2) Trial Counsel's representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (3) Fidlago knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily admitted he possessed a deadly weapon during the act.
See Plea Colloquy Tr. at 7-14, 24-29, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 7-14, 24-29, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. The Trial Judge recalls Fidlago's plea colloquy because he told the Court, at the outset, he did not want to accept the plea and felt he was being coerced. Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6:11-16, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6:11-16, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. The Court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Fidlago and emphasized repeatedly that he did not have to accept a plea. See Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6-8, 10-11, 12-13, 2427, 29, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 6-8, 10-11, 12-13, 24-27, 29, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15.
See State's Resp. at 6, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 19; State's Resp. at 6, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 19.
Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15:1-17:4, ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15:1-17:4, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. He is bound to the statements he made during his colloquy. See Palmer v. State, 2002 WL 31546531, at *1 (Del. 2002) (citing Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997); Plea Colloquy Tr. at 15, at 28:4-6), ID No. 2111014013, D.I. 12; Plea Colloquy Tr. at 28:46, ID No. 2112000947, D.I. 15. ("Have all your answers to the Court today been truthful? . . . [ANSWER:] . . . Yes.)
Concerning Fidlago's Motion for Appointment of Postconviction Counsel, Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(3) sets the applicable standard for the appointment of postconviction counsel. The rule affords the Court discretion to appoint counsel only if the following conditions are met:
Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(3).
(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.
Id.
The Rule requires that all conditions stated therein be met, so where a defendant fails to meet one condition, he will be ineligible for appointment of postconviction counsel. Defendant's motion for appointment of counsel fails because Fidlago did not file a direct appeal with the Supreme Court; his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit; and Fidlago has not presented the Court with any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the appointment of counsel.
State v. Hooker, 2023 WL 2707227, at *3 (Del. Super. Mar. 29, 2023).