Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Nixongreen1 sentence2025Even if counsel believes the defendant’s motion is contrary to his interest or is without merit, a defendant’s decision to attempt to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing cannot be overruled by counsel. 49 Smith entered his GBMI plea on August 30, 2017. 50 On October 9, 2017, Smith wrote a letter to Trial Counsel requesting to withdraw his plea and have a motion filed.51 Smith reiterated the same request to Trial Counsel on October 19, 2017 when they had an in-person meeting.52 During that discussion, Trial Counsel told Smith that they had no legal basis to withdraw his guilty plea.53 They did | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025C. § 408 or the process set forth in Taylor v. State, the experts’ reports were reviewed and Smith’s mental illness was discussed prior to his GBMI plea being accepted.”19 16 Id. (emphasis added). 17 Id. (citing Patterson v. State, 684 A.2d 1234, 1239 (Del. 1996)). 18 Id. (citing Patterson, 684 A.2d at 1239 ). 19 Remand Order at *3. 5 2. 2025C. § 408 or the process set forth in Taylor v. State, the experts’ reports were reviewed and Smith’s mental illness was discussed prior to his GBMI plea being accepted.”19 16 Id. (emphasis added). 17 Id. (citing Patterson v. State, 684 A.2d 1234, 1239 (Del. 1996)). 18 Id. (citing Patterson, 684 A.2d at 1239 ). 19 Remand Order at *3. 5 2. | 1 | 1 |
Lindsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2023C. § 408(a), since Defendant was not permitted to withdraw his GBMI plea before his second GBMI hearing.”5 2 Shah v. State, 2015 WL 9436813, at *2 (Del. 2023C. § 408(a), since Defendant was not permitted to withdraw his GBMI plea before his second GBMI hearing.”5 2 Shah v. State, 2015 WL 9436813, at *2 (Del. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooke v. State
green
2 sentences2025Even if counsel believes the defendant’s motion is contrary to his interest or is without merit, a defendant’s decision to attempt to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing cannot be overruled by counsel. 49 Smith entered his GBMI plea on August 30, 2017. 50 On October 9, 2017, Smith wrote a letter to Trial Counsel requesting to withdraw his plea and have a motion filed.51 Smith reiterated the same request to Trial Counsel on October 19, 2017 when they had an in-person meeting.52 During that discussion, Trial Counsel told Smith that they had no legal basis to withdraw his guilty plea.53 They did 2024Young Correction Institute and during Smith’s scheduled court appearances.75 Trial Counsel state that in their discussions with Smith, they detailed the benefits and drawbacks of going to trial versus resolving the matter through a plea bargain, as well as potentially viable defenses.76 Trial Counsel informed Smith that there was a 72 Appeal from the Commissioner’s Findings of Facts and Recommendation at 1. 73 Id. 74 Id. at 1-2. 75 D.I. 59. 76 Id. significant mandatory minimum if convicted of all counts in the indictment.77 While Trial Counsel admit that Smith had reservations about entering i | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences2023R. 61(i)(1)-(5) (barring untimely motions, successive motions, and motions that assert grounds for relief that are procedurally defaulted or formerly adjudicated, unless they satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii)). 16 213 A.3d at 562 . 17 Id. 7 then accepted the GBMI plea and imposed the sentence.18 On direct appeal, Taylor argued that the Superior Court failed to comply with 11 Del. 2023R. 61(i)(1)-(5) (barring untimely motions, successive motions, and motions that assert grounds for relief that are procedurally defaulted or formerly adjudicated, unless they satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 61(d)(2)(i) or (ii)). 16 213 A.3d at 562 . 17 Id. 7 then accepted the GBMI plea and imposed the sentence.18 On direct appeal, Taylor argued that the Superior Court failed to comply with 11 Del. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Stansbury v. State
green
2 sentences1997Stansbury v. State, 591 A.2d at 191 . 1997Stansbury v. State, 591 A.2d at 191 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.