Bowden v. State, 425, 2020

Jan 2019: Grand jury indicted Frank Bowden on multiple counts including attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree rape, and first‑degree kidnapping; on Nov. 25, 2019 Bowden pled guilty to second‑degree rape and second‑degree kidnapping.
Nov. 13, 2020: Superior Court sentenced Bowden — second‑degree rape: 25 years Level V, suspended after 20 years but ordered to be served without benefit of early release under 11 Del. C. § 4204(k); second‑degree kidnapping: 15 years Level V, suspended to lesser supervision.
Counsel filed a Rule 26(c) no‑merit brief and motion to withdraw; Bowden submitted pro se points of appeal.
Bowden’s appellate claims: (1) imposition of the § 4204(k) no‑early‑release condition was not in the plea agreement and was unfair; (2) the sentencing judge was biased, cut him off, and disregarded his statements.
The Court reviewed the plea colloquy, sentencing transcript, and record, found the plea knowing and voluntary, held the § 4204(k) condition statutorily authorized and properly applied, found no judicial bias or closed mind, and affirmed the Superior Court judgment.

Issue	Bowden's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether imposition of 11 Del. C. § 4204(k) despite not being mentioned in plea rendered plea involuntary or unfair	§ 4204(k) was not in plea agreement; its imposition was unfair	Plea colloquy and written plea show plea was knowing and voluntary; § 4204(k) is statutorily authorized and judge properly exercised discretion	Rejected. Plea was knowing and voluntary; § 4204(k) authorized and appropriately applied
Whether the judge displayed bias or a closed mind by cutting off and disregarding Bowden’s statement at sentencing	Judge cut him off and ignored his allocution, showing prejudice	Judge complied with Rule 32, asked questions after allocution, considered statements and credibility; doubts about remorse do not equal bias	Rejected. No bias or closed mind; no abuse of discretion
Whether the sentence was unlawful or an abuse of discretion (e.g., exceeded guidelines)	Sentence was excessive and potentially outside guidelines	Sentences fall within statutory limits; judge relied on permissible factual predicates and victim impact; sentencing discretion properly exercised	Rejected. Sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988) (standards for counsel withdrawal and review of no‑merit briefs)
Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926 (Del. 1996) (Delaware application of no‑merit brief review standards)
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (defendant bound by representations made during plea colloquy absent clear and convincing evidence)
Weston v. State, 832 A.2d 742 (Del. 2003) (standard of appellate review for sentences; closed‑mind/abuse‑of‑discretion analysis)