Pierce v. State
242, 2021
| Del. | Mar 24, 2022Background
- In March 2019 a grand jury indicted Isaac Pierce on multiple charges arising from September 15–16, 2018: two counts of first‑degree rape, first‑degree kidnapping, strangulation, third‑degree assault, and terroristic threatening.
- Victim Sar’Dae Adkins testified that Pierce choked, beat, raped, and threatened to kill her after learning she had been massaged; Pierce admitted choking and assaulting Adkins, and that sexual intercourse occurred, but claimed it was consensual.
- A jury convicted Pierce of one count of first‑degree rape, first‑degree kidnapping, strangulation, third‑degree assault, and terroristic threatening; acquitted on the other rape count.
- Pierce was sentenced to 65 years, suspended after 34 years for decreasing supervision levels. New counsel was appointed after trial; counsel later filed a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw on appeal, asserting no arguable issues.
- Pierce raised (1) ineffective assistance / prejudice based on counsel’s pretrial comments and alleged effect on judicial impartiality, and (2) that he was coerced into waiving his speedy‑trial rights to obtain a continuance for a DNA expert. The court reviewed counsel’s Rule 26(c) submission and the record.
- The Delaware Supreme Court concluded there were no arguable issues, declined to consider ineffective‑assistance on direct appeal (not decided below), reviewed the speedy‑trial claim for plain error, found no coercion, and affirmed the Superior Court. The motion to withdraw was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pierce received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s pretrial comments | Pierce contends counsel’s comments that he was "difficult" show deficient performance and prejudice | State argues the claim was not decided on the merits below and is not properly before the Court on direct appeal | Court refused to consider ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal where not decided below; claim reviewed later via collateral proceedings (per Desmond) |
| Whether counsel’s comments undermined the trial judge’s impartiality | Pierce argues the comments tainted the judge’s impartiality | State points to the record showing no bias or conduct undermining impartiality | Court found no basis to doubt the trial judge’s impartiality; no error |
| Whether Pierce was coerced into waiving his speedy‑trial rights | Pierce asserts he was coerced by the court, State, and counsel into waiving speedy‑trial | State and record show Pierce was informed and chose to waive to obtain additional evidence (DNA expert) | Reviewed for plain error; court found waiver was voluntary to pursue evidence and no plain error |
| Whether appointed appellate counsel properly moved to withdraw under Rule 26(c) and whether appeal had arguable issues | Pierce submitted proposed points for appeal | State contended counsel examined record and identified no meritorious issues | Court held counsel made a conscientious review; appeal is frivolous and devoid of arguable issues; judgment affirmed; withdrawal motion moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appointing counsel must thoroughly examine record and identify arguable issues when seeking withdrawal)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (procedural safeguards for counsel withdrawal and review of pro se claims)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when appointed counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821 (Del. 1994) (ineffective‑assistance claims not considered on direct appeal when trial court did not rule on the claim)
- Mills v. State, 201 A.3d 1163 (Del. 2019) (issues not raised below reviewed for plain error)
- Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096 (Del. 1986) (definition and limits of plain‑error review)