Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 11, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANA WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 11, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN01-09-0986 and 
§  -0987 
§  Cr. ID 0109001783 
 
Submitted: July 1, 2003 
  Decided: July 28, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of July 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Dana Williams, was convicted 
following a bench trial of assault in a detention facility and criminal 
mischief.  The Superior Court sentenced Williams to a total period of three 
years and thirty days incarceration, to be suspended after a one-year 
minimum mandatory term for probation.  This is Williams’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Williams’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Williams’ counsel asserts that, based upon 
 
 
-2- 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Williams’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Williams with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Williams also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Williams did not raise any 
issues in writing for this Court's consideration.  His counsel, however, 
indicates that he spoke to Williams about the appeal, and Williams orally 
expressed his concern that a change in his appointed counsel occurred during 
his case.  The State has responded to the position taken by Williams’ 
counsel, as well as to Williams’ concern about his counsel, and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court's decision. 
(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:  (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 least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
                                                 
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). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
The record reflects that, following Williams’ arraignment, his 
public defender filed a letter with the Superior Court indicating that the 
public defender’s office had a conflict.  The Superior Court initially 
appointed substitute counsel but later determined that the public defender’s 
office, in fact, had no current conflict in Williams’ case.  Ultimately, after 
substitute counsel filed a letter indicating she had a conflict in the case, the 
public defender re-appeared and tried the case on Williams’ behalf. 
 
(5) 
Although an indigent defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to 
the effective assistance of counsel, and trial judges ordinarily must recognize 
a presumption in favor of defendant’s counsel of choice,2 there is no 
absolute right to the counsel of defendant’s choice.3  Given Williams’ failure 
to support his complaint in writing with specific allegations of prejudice, 
despite being given the opportunity to do so, we find no error on the face of 
the record in the Superior Court’s re-appointment of the public defender to 
represent Williams’ in this case.  To the extent that Williams’ complaint can 
be construed as an allegation that his counsel was ineffective due to a 
                                                 
2 Lewis v. State, 757 A.2d 709, 710 (Del. 2000). 
3  Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 166 (1988). 
 
 
-4- 
conflict, this Court generally will not consider claims of ineffective 
assistance of counsel raised for the first time on direct appeal.4  
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Williams’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Williams’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Williams could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
 
                                                 
4 See Lewis v. State, 757 A.2d at 712.