Case Title: Sims v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 319, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RON SIMS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 319, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2006003726 (N) 
§   
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: March 5, 2024 
Decided: 
May 7, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the non-merit brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Following a police investigation into an allegation that the appellant, 
Ron Sims, had sexual contact with a minor male, a Superior Court grand jury 
charged Sims by indictment with one count of first-degree unlawful sexual contact.  
In June 2022, Sims waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench 
trial.  At trial, the State presented evidence that Sims placed his hand on the outside 
of the victim’s sweatpants and rubbed the victim’s penis for approximately one to 
two minutes one afternoon in the living room of the victim’s father’s house when 
 
 
2 
 
the victim was in the third grade.  At the conclusion of the trial, the Superior Court 
judge found Sims guilty as charged.  On August 8, 2023, the Superior Court 
sentenced Sims to eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of 
Level III probation.  This is Sims’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Sims’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of 
the record, he could not identify any arguably appealable issues.  Counsel informed 
Sims of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and a draft of the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Sims of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Sims has not provided any points 
for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a 
motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold.  First, 
the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious 
examination of the record and the law for claims that could be arguably raised on 
appeal. 1  Second, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442 
(1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
 
3 
 
whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it 
can be decided without an adversary presentation.2 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Sims’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues.  
We are also satisfied that Sims’ counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Sims could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
 
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82.