IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LATEEF A. DICKERSON, §
§ No. 109, 2018
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID No. N1408008905
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 24, 2018
Decided: October 11, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Lateef Dickerson, appeals the Superior
Court’s denial of his first motion for postconviction relief. We find no merit to
the appeal. Thus, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(2) The record reflects that Dickerson pled guilty in April 2016 to one
count each of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Receiving a Stolen
Firearm, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. In accordance with the parties’
plea agreement, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion to declare
Dickerson a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total period of seventeen
years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving ten years in prison
for two years at Level III probation. Dickerson did not file a direct appeal. In
October 2016, Dickerson filed a motion for postconviction relief under Superior
Court Criminal Rule 61. After receiving trial counsel’s affidavit, additional
briefing, and transcripts from the guilty plea and sentencing hearings, a Superior
Court Commissioner issued a report, recommending that Dickerson’s motion be
denied.1 After review, the Superior Court adopted the Commissioner’s
recommendation and denied Dickerson’s motion.2 This appeal followed.
(3) In his opening brief on appeal, Dickerson argues that the Superior
Court erred in denying his Rule 61 motion without first holding an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether his guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently,
and voluntarily. Dickerson contends that the plea was the result of coercion by
his counsel, who told him that he would receive a life sentence if he did not accept
the plea.3 He asserts that the Superior Court failed to address this argument.
(4) Dickerson is incorrect. The Commissioner’s report carefully
reviewed Dickerson’s plea colloquy and concluded that Dickerson had “provided
no basis to deviate from the [Superior] Court’s decision to accept the plea” as
1
State v. Dickerson, 2018 WL 565302 (Del. Super. Jan. 23, 2018).
2
State v. Dickerson, Cr. ID No. N1408008905 (Del. Super. Feb. 20, 2018).
3
To the extent that Dickerson raised additional claims in the motion that he filed in the Superior
Court, those claims are deemed to be waived for his failure to argue them in his opening brief
on appeal. Murphy v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993).
2
knowing, intelligently, and voluntarily made.4 The Commissioner expressly
concluded that Dickerson’s argument that his “plea was coerced in any way is
belied by the record.”5 We agree with that conclusion and find no merit to the
argument that Dickerson’s trial counsel was ineffective and coerced him into
pleading guilty.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
4
State v. Dickerson, 2018 WL 565302, *2.
5
Id. at *3.
3