Reed v. State

Decision Date11 August 2021
Docket NumberNo. 214, 2020,214, 2020
Citation258 A.3d 807
Parties Jerry REED, Defendant-Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff-Below, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

Patrick J. Collins, Esquire (argued), Collins & Associates, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.

Matthew C. Bloom, Esquire (argued), Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

VALIHURA, Justice:

In this appeal we confront the situation where, prior to sentencing, defendant Jerry Reed ("Reed") sought to withdraw his guilty plea, but his counsel refused to file a motion to do so, apparently under the belief that no grounds justifying a plea withdrawal were present, and the Superior Court refused to consider his pro se motion because he was represented by counsel. As Reed put it, he became stuck in a Catch-22 due to the operation of two Superior Court Criminal Rules.1

In order to resolve the tension between the rules, we hold that a criminal defendant's control of the objectives of the representation prior to sentencing requires that counsel either obey an instruction to file a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, or seek leave to withdraw so that the defendant can file the motion with other counsel or pro se. Because the factual record in this case is incomplete, and because some of the Superior Court's factual findings are not supported by the record, we reverse and remand for additional fact-finding necessary to determine whether Reed's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel have merit.

I. Relevant Facts and Background

On September 26, 2018, police found the body of Isaac Hatton ("Hatton") on the shoreline near a boat ramp for Portsville Pond in Laurel, Delaware.2 He had been shot to death in the early morning hours or very late the previous evening. The charges in this case all stem from the events leading up to Hatton's death.

A. The Murder of Isaac Hatton

On the evening of September 25, 2018, Hatton was at the Little Creek Deli in Laurel, Delaware. While he was at the deli, surveillance footage showed Hatton getting into a verbal altercation with others. Thereafter, Hatton and several others left the deli. Informants who claimed to be at the deli told police that two of the people who verbally confronted Hatton at the deli were Reed and Traevon Dixon ("Dixon").

After he left the deli, Hatton went to the Wexford Village Apartments, which is also located in Laurel. Dixon, Reed, and others who had been at the deli confrontation went to the Wexford Village Apartments as well but left when residents told the group that they would call the police if the group did not vacate the area.3 From there, the group went to the Portsville Pond boat ramp.4 At some point as the altercation continued at the boat ramp, Dixon drew a firearm and repeatedly shot at Hatton,5 who died of multiple gunshot wounds.

Hatton's grandmother reported him missing shortly after midnight. Police discovered his body on the shoreline, along with several spent shell casings in the boat ramp launch area. During their investigation, police learned of a feud between Dixon and Hatton, and that Hatton intended to "expose" Dixon via social media.

Police arrested Dixon. After his arrest and Miranda warning, Dixon gave a statement confessing to having fired several shots at Hatton with a handgun at the boat ramp. Dixon also stated that Reed was at the boat ramp, and that after he shot at Hatton, Reed took out a handgun and fired at Hatton as well.6

In the end, the State's investigation indicates that about seven people were present at the boat ramp, including Hatton, and that four of them identified Reed as a shooter.7 The State's investigation, in addition to discovering the Hatton/Dixon feud, also suggests Hatton owed Reed money. When police interviewed Reed, he admitted to being at the deli and the Wexford Village Apartments, but denied being at the Portsville Pond boat ramp.

B. Procedural History

On November 5, 2018, a Sussex County grand jury indicted Reed and Dixon. The indictment8 charged them each with Murder First Degree,9 Conspiracy First Degree,10 Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited ("PFBPP"),11 and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony ("PFDCF").12

On May 29, 2019, the Superior Court granted a motion to sever so that the defendants could have separate trials. The Superior Court also ordered that Dixon be tried first and severed the PFBPP charge from the Murder First Degree charge.

On September 25, 2019, Dixon pleaded guilty to Murder Second Degree and PFDCF. The Superior Court sentenced him to a total of thirty-five years of incarceration at Level V, suspended after twenty years followed by additional periods of probation. In the plea agreement, Dixon agreed to testify against Reed at trial.13

At his January 6, 2020 final case review, Reed rejected an offer of a plea to Manslaughter and PFDCF with a nolo contendere resolution of the PFDCF charge.14 The plea would have also resolved the severed PFBPP charge. There was no agreement as to a sentencing recommendation. The Superior Court engaged in a colloquy directly with Reed confirming his decision to reject that offer.

C. Reed Enters a Plea

On January 13, 2020, Reed pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of Manslaughter and nolo contendere to the PFDCF charge.15 As part of his plea agreement, the State entered a nolle prosequi to the remaining charges, including the severed PFBPP count. The plea agreement also provided for restitution and for no contact with Dixon or with Hatton's family, but otherwise contained no sentencing recommendation. This plea was materially identical to the one he had rejected a week earlier.

The Superior Court engaged in a colloquy with Reed to confirm Reed's understanding and agreement to the plea. Reed stated that he was satisfied with his legal representation.16 Reed confirmed that he understood that he was waiving his trial and appeal rights. Reed confirmed that he was pleading guilty to manslaughter because he was guilty of that charge.17 He confirmed that he was pleading no contest to the PFDCF charge as well and that he understood that the Superior Court could treat his no contest plea as if he had been found guilty or pleaded guilty to it for purposes of sentencing. Reed finally confirmed that his decision to so plead was voluntary:

THE COURT: Are you doing this voluntarily and of your own free will this morning?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.18

Accordingly, the Superior Court found Reed's plea to be "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered."19

D. Reed Attempts to Withdraw his Plea

Eight days later, on January 21, 2020, Reed wrote to the trial judge seeking to withdraw his plea.20

In the letter, Reed asserted that his attorney advised him "it was my best interest to take this plea weather I was innocent or not because if I would of went to Trial I was going to lose either way because I was going to be going up against a justice system that is set up to go against Black people and minorities and no matter what I was going to get found guilty of something."21 The letter also asserted Reed's claim to actual innocence. He asserted in the letter that at his preliminary hearing the State concealed information about the autopsy and a ballistics report which would prove his innocence. The letter further explained that his guilty plea reflects an admission that he is responsible for Hatton's death by another's hand:

[My] Attorney had me take a Plea to Manslaughter saying that I Recklessly caused the death of the victim because alleged witnesses said that I instigated a fist-fight and a possessen [sic] charge of a firearm when I never had a gun nor did I ever fire any type of weapon/gun.22

Reed also stated that he believed that the State's witnesses were testifying only in exchange for their own non-prosecution, and as a result, he was "not being equally protected by the law."23

The judge sent the letter to Reed's counsel.24 For some reason, his letter was not docketed until February 21, 2020. On February 6, 2020, Reed also filed a form letter to his counsel asking his counsel to file a motion to withdraw his plea.

Based upon Reed's counsel's February 6, 2020, letter to the Court concerning exhibits Reed wanted to present at sentencing, the State requested that the Superior Court hold an office conference to discuss the scope of the upcoming February 28, 2020, sentencing hearing. At the conference held on February 17, 2020, the topic of Reed's guilty plea arose and the discussion, based upon our review of the transcript, appears to be limited to the following colloquy:

THE COURT: All right. Another topic and I'm not sure we need to talk much about this, but we did get a copy of a letter from your client, [Defense Counsel], where he was talking about withdrawing his plea. I've pretty much ignored it thinking that if you feel there is grounds for that we will deal with it.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, he wants to , but there is no legal ground. We thought there may be. We went and investigated. It turned out from a legal perspective there's no legal justification to withdraw the plea.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE STATE: The State was aware that Mr. Reed wanted to withdraw the plea and then when I got this letter, it was kind of like, hey, we are going to rehash the entire trial in the form of sentencing when he's already taken a plea. So that was the State's concern.
THE COURT: Your point is well taken, [State's Counsel]. As I've said twice now, I don't intend to relitigate the liability issue.25
The call ended after this exchange.

On May 27, 2020, the Superior Court conducted a teleconference to attempt to recall this exchange. The following exchange then occurred:

THE COURT: Now let me just -- I want to confirm my recollection of this, either [Defense Counsel], you can tell me there was a letter that your client filed after he
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Peters
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • September 30, 2022
    ...firearm in certain contexts, and "clarify[ing] several points" and "existing inconsistencies" in relevant Delaware law); Reed v. State , 258 A.3d 807, 828-29 (Del. 2021) ("We acknowledge that our decisional law on this point has not been consistent. In order to remedy this problem, we now h......
  • State v. Lambert
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • June 30, 2022
    ...658, 104 S.Ct. 2039.20 Id. at 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039 ; Urquhart , 203 A.3d at 729.21 Urquhart , 203 A.3d at 729 n.57. See Reed v. State , 258 A.3d 807, 821-22 (Del. 2021) (explaining that the right to effective assistance of counsel is not limited only to the trial, but "applies to pretrial cr......
  • State v. Cooke
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • December 15, 2022
    ...to do the impossible or to make up defenses where they do not exist to attempt a useless charade. Id. at 656 n. 19. In Reed v. State, 258 A.3d 807 (Del. 2021) our Court held "Cronic applies where the deprivation of counsel is total, as when the accused is denied counsel at a critical state ......
  • Morrison v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 16, 2022
    ...Super. Ct.).2 The sentencing order incorrectly states that sentencing occurred on January 12, 2018 instead of February 16, 2018.3 258 A.3d 807 (Del. 2021).4 Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988) ; Leacock v. State , 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).5 Dawson v. State , 673 A.2d 1186, 1190 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT