Carlson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DENNIS N. CARLSON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 76, 2004 Court Below ¯Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.ID 0112018247 Submitted: November 5, 2004 Decided: December 13, 2004 Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 13th day of December 2004, upon consideration of the Superior Court s report and recommendations following remand and the parties respective responses thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) This is Dennis Carlson s direct appeal from his criminal sentencing on multiple counts of securities law violations. Carlson was represented at trial by privately-retained counsel. Prior to sentencing, the Superior Court granted defense counsel s motion to withdraw on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The public defender informed the Superior Court that Carlson did not meet the financial eligibility requirements. Carlson, therefore, proceeded to sentencing without legal counsel. (2) After filing his notice of appeal pro se, Carlson filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. On July 27, 2004, we remanded the matter to the Superior Court for a fact-finding hearing on Carlson s financial ability to retain legal counsel. The Superior Court filed its report on remand on October 21, 2004. In its report, the Superior Court concluded that Carlson is indigent, and therefore entitled to legal counsel at State expense on direct appeal. Moreover, the Superior Court recognized that Carlson was, in fact, indigent at the time of his sentencing and was entitled to the assistance of court-appointed counsel at that time. The Superior Court therefore recommended that the matter be remanded for resentencing. (3) Both Carlson and the State have responded to the Superior Court s report. The State laudably concedes plain error in the sentencing of Carlson, an indigent defendant, without the benefit of court-appointed counsel. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we find it necessary to vacate the Superior Court s January 30, 2004 sentencing order and to remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing after counsel is appointed to represent Carlson. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court s judgment is VACATED. This matter is hereby REMANDED for a new sentencing hearing in accordance with this Order. Jurisdiction is not retained. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice 2
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.
