Case Title: Bolton v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 405, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES BOLTON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 405, 2017 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1701006341 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: February 16, 2018 
  Decided: April 6, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of April 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme 
Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response 
and motion to remand, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Charles Bolton, pleaded guilty to one count of vehicular 
assault in the second degree.  Following a presentence investigation (“PSI”), the 
Superior Court sentenced Bolton to one year at Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving thirty days in prison for one year of Level II probation.  This 
is Bolton’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Bolton’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Bolton’s counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful 
2 
 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Nonetheless, 
counsel points out that the Superior Court, in sentencing Bolton, relied on erroneous 
information contained in the PSI report in finding that Bolton had a 2015 conviction 
for DUI in Maryland. 
(3) 
By letter, Bolton’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided Bolton with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Bolton also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  In his response to counsel’s Rule 26(c) brief, Bolton’s sole 
point relates to the Superior Court’s reliance upon the incorrect information about 
him contained in the PSI.  The State concedes that Bolton does not have a 2015 
conviction for DUI in Maryland and that the Superior Court erred in relying upon 
that information as an aggravating factor in sentencing Bolton.  The State requests 
that this Court affirm the Superior Court’s judgment of conviction but remand the 
matter for resentencing. 
(4) 
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:  (a) this 
Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination 
of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its 
own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at 
3 
 
least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.1
(5) 
The sole issue raised by Bolton relates to the incorrect information 
relied upon by the Superior Court at sentencing.  The State concedes that the 
Superior Court erred by relying on this incorrect information at sentencing.  We have 
reviewed the record carefully and agree that the matter should be remanded for 
resentencing.  We find no error with respect to Bolton’s guilty plea and the Superior 
Court’s judgment conviction for vehicular assault in the second degree.  Thus, we 
affirm Bolton’s conviction but remand the matter for resentencing. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment 
of conviction is AFFIRMED.  The matter is REMANDED for a new sentencing 
hearing in accordance with this Order.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 
442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).