Medkeff v. State, 181, 2017

Jefferey Medkeff was indicted for aggravated menacing (two counts), possession of a weapon during a felony, and endangering the welfare of a child after threatening his ex-wife and adult son with a baseball bat in view of his minor son.
In Feb 2017 Medkeff pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated menacing and one count of endangering the welfare of a child; the State nolle prossed the remaining charges.
At plea colloquy Medkeff acknowledged history of substance abuse and mental illness, confirmed he reviewed the plea form, understood the court (not the parties) would decide sentence, and that he faced a maximum of six years’ incarceration.
Sentencing was deferred to allow counsel to pursue treatment options; a forensic evaluator recommended a community residential treatment program.
At sentencing the State urged Level V incarceration given criminal history; the Superior Court imposed six years Level V (five years for aggravated menacing, one year for endangering the welfare of a child), suspended after three years and successful completion of a Level V Key Program for probation.
On appeal counsel filed a Rule 26(c) no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw; Medkeff filed pro se points. The State moved to affirm; the Supreme Court reviewed the record and counsel’s filings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Medkeff's guilty plea was involuntary because the plea was "unfulfilled" — he expected inpatient rehabilitation instead of jail	Medkeff: plea promised inpatient rehabilitation, so plea was not knowing/voluntary	State/Supreme Court: plea colloquy shows Medkeff knew maximum exposure and that court would decide sentence; no promise of treatment	Court: plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Medkeff bound by his representations
Whether the sentence was excessive for departing from SENTAC guidelines	Medkeff: sentence exceeded SENTAC guidelines and was excessive	State/Supreme Court: statutory maximums were not exceeded; SENTAC nonconformity alone is not reversible; court cited aggravating factors justifying upward departure	Court: sentence within statutory limits and not appealable merely for deviating from SENTAC; claim without merit

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (standards for counsel filing a no‑merit brief and appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (appellate counsel obligations when seeking to withdraw)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appointed counsel who believes appeal is frivolous)
Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (a defendant is bound by representations made during a plea colloquy absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary)
Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992) (a defendant has no right to a sentence that merely conforms to SENTAC guidelines)