State of Delaware v. Lindsey.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. GERRON LINDSEY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I.D. NO. 0002019767 Date Submitted: May 6, 2002 Date Decided: May 21, 2002 MEMORANDUM OPINION U PON D EFENDANT S M OTION TO W ITHDRAW G UILTY P LEA DENIED Antho ny A. Fig liola, Esq . and Sh eryl Rush -Milste ad, Esq . of Wi lmingto n, Dela ware, Attorneys fo r Defen dant. Stuart Sklut, Esq. and Donald Roberts, Esq. of Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for the State of Delaware. State v. Lindsey I.D. No. 0002019767 May 21, 2002 Page 2 On this 21st day of M ay 2002, upo n conside ration of D efendan t s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea an d the record in this case, it app ears to the C ourt that: (1) Defend ant Gerro n Lindsey ( D efendan t ) was arre sted and ch arged w ith two counts M urder First Degree: one for intentional murder an d one for felony-mu rder, five counts Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a Felony, Attempted Murder First Degree, Attempted Robbery First Degree, two counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by Person Prohibited and Robbery First Degree. (2) On April 9, 2002, Defendant accepted a guilty plea offer by the State, which specified that Defendant would plea guilty but mentally ill to Murder First Degree. The State specified that it would not seek the death penalty. The remainder of the charges were to be nolle prossed. On the same date, the Court accepted Defendant s guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation and an evidentiary hearing to establish the foundation for the Defendant s plea of guilty but mentally ill. During the guilty plea proceedin gs, Antho ny Figliola and Sheryl Rush -Milstead r epresented the Defe ndant. (3) Defend ant has no w filed a m otion to w ithdraw h is guilty plea. Pursu ant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d), the court may permit withdrawal of the plea upon a showing by the defen dant of an y fair and just rea son. Perm ission to gran t this State v. Lindsey I.D. No. 0002019767 May 21, 2002 Page 3 withdr awal is within the sou nd disc retion o f the trial court. Brown v. State, 250 A.2d 503, 504 (Del. 1969). (4) There are five factors that should be considered by the court in determining whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a guilty plea: whether there was a procedu ral defect in ta king the ple a; whethe r the defen dant know ingly and volu ntarily consented to the plea; whether the defendant has a basis to assert legal innocence; whether the defendant had adequate legal counsel throughout the proceedings; and wheth er gran ting the m otion w ould pr ejudice the State or und uly incon venien ce the c ourt. State v. Friend, Cr. A. No. 93-08-0 361, 1994 W L 234120 (D el. Super. May 12, 1994 ), aff d, 683 A.2d 59 (D el. 1996). (5) Defendant argues in his motion that at the time the guilty plea was entered, Defendant was a patient at the Delaware State Hospital and was receiving medication which effected his ability to understand what he was doing. Thus, it can be argued that Defendant is asserting that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the plea. (6) On the g uilty plea form, D efendan t indicated tha t he freely and v oluntarily deci ded to plead g uilty to the c harg e liste d in the plea a gree men t. Mo st importantly, when asked, Defendant indicated that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time he signed the g uilty plea form th at affected his ability to know and to understand the charge against him. Moreover, Defendant also indicated that he State v. Lindsey I.D. No. 0002019767 May 21, 2002 Page 4 understoo d that the m inimum m andatory pen alty for the charg e he was pleading g uilty to would be life im prisonm ent with out the b enefit o f prob ation or parole. (7) Defendant further indicated that he understood, by pleading guilty, that he was w aiving th e const itutiona l rights liste d on the guilty plea form. (8) In addition, h is attorney indicate d that he ha d extensive conversa tions with Defend ant about th e plea. Prior to the plea collo quy Defen dant was sworn. D efendan t, under oath, stated that he was taking medications for depression and sleep. He further indicated that he was able to understand that he was pleading guilty to Murder in the First Degree and by pleading guilty would be sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant acknowledged his signatures on the Truth in Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and the Plea Agreem ent, which in fact indica te that there is a p ossibility of the de ath penalty. His attorney stated o n the record that Defe ndant read the question s for himse lf and wr ote his answers himself. Further, the Court was able to witness Defendant s demeanor during the plea colloquy and found him to be alert and that he verbally answered the questions in an appropriate mann er. (9) After careful review of documents supporting Defendant s guilty plea and the plea collo quy, the Cou rt finds that D efendan t knowin gly and volun tarily consented to the plea agr eement. Defendant has merely changed his mind and this Court will not State v. Lindsey I.D. No. 0002019767 May 21, 2002 Page 5 vacate the guilt y plea bas ed on th at reaso n. State v. Marks, I.D. No. 9408013769, 1999 WL 161 1338 (Del. Sup er. Mar. 22, 1999). For the fo rgoing reas ons, Def endant s M otion to W ithdraw h is Guilty Plea is here by DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________________ ALFORD , J. Prothonotary s Office - Criminal Div.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
