State v. Pickle
1309017881
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Defendant Robert J. Pickle pled guilty to five counts of Rape in the Third Degree arising from sexual acts with a minor (initially 14, later 15) occurring Feb–Sep 2013; originally indicted on many more counts.
- Plea agreement: aggregate recommendation of 25 years suspended after 5 years at Level V, additional confinement and supervision terms; State nolle prossed remaining charges.
- Defendant completed and signed a Truth-in-Sentencing form and participated in a plea colloquy in which he affirmed the plea was knowing, voluntary, and uncoerced; the court accepted the plea and sentenced according to the agreement.
- Defendant filed an Amended First Motion for Postconviction Relief alleging (inter alia) factual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel (pretrial and plea stages), Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1 violations, failure to obtain psychiatric evaluation, and deficient plea colloquy.
- The Superior Court treated the amended motion as timely (delay due in part to Prothonotary error) and conducted an evidentiary review including counsel’s affidavit and a hearing.
- Court denied relief, finding (1) counsel reasonably reviewed evidence and validly declined a suppression motion, (2) plea counsel’s performance was not deficient and the plea was favorable, (3) allegations of coercion/deception were conclusory and contradicted by the plea colloquy, (4) no basis shown for a required psychiatric exam, and (5) plea colloquy was adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Pickle's Argument | State / Defense Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — pretrial (failure to review evidence / suppress confession) | Amalfitano failed to examine DVD/texts and should have moved to suppress confession obtained by intimidation | Counsel reviewed evidence, saw no signs of coercion on video, suppression motion would be futile | Denied — counsel not deficient; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance — plea negotiations | Counsel misunderstood charges, poorly communicated, led to involuntary plea | Counsel understood charges, discussed plea; plea substantially favorable vs exposed sentence | Denied — performance reasonable; no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial |
| Counsel misconduct under RPC 4.1 / coercion to accept plea | Counsel deceived/intimidated Pickle and used an accomplice to force signing | Plea colloquy and record show plea was voluntary; defendant gave no specific, corroborating facts | Denied — conclusory allegations contradicted by solemn court statements |
| Failure to obtain psychiatric evaluation | Counsel should have ordered exam for alleged complex PTSD/developmental trauma which would affect plea | Intake questionnaire and video showed no signs; counsel had no basis to order exam | Denied — no deficient performance or resulting prejudice |
| Deficient plea colloquy | Court conducted only boilerplate questioning and failed to personally ensure understanding | Plea colloquy transcript shows direct questioning and affirmative responses about rights, voluntariness, and counsel satisfaction | Denied — colloquy adequate; no substantial-rights impact |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applying Strickland to plea negotiations; prejudice requires showing reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (solemn in-court plea statements carry strong presumption of verity in collateral proceedings)
- Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629 (Del. 1997) (defendant bound by plea colloquy statements absent clear and convincing contrary proof)
- Outten v. State, 720 A.2d 547 (Del. 1998) (requiring concrete allegations and substantiation for ineffective assistance claims)
- Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (discussing Strickland standard in postconviction context)