Case Title: Shorts v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 165, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS E. SHORTS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 165, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1209010470 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 9, 2013 
Decided: 
July 19, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of July 2013, 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) 
On February 27, 2013, after the Superior Court denied his 
motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test, the appellant, Thomas 
Shorts, pled guilty to one count of Driving Under the Influence (4th Offense) 
and one count of Noncompliance with Bond.  The Superior Court 
immediately sentenced Shorts to a total period of seven years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after serving six months, to be followed by 
eighteen months at Level III probation.  This is Shorts’ direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Shorts’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Shorts’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Shorts’ attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Shorts with a copy of the motion to withdraw 
and the accompanying brief.  Shorts also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney's presentation.  Shorts’ only argument is that his 
trial counsel was ineffective at the suppression hearing.  The State has 
responded to Shorts’ issue, as well as to the position taken by Shorts’ 
counsel, 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:  (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 
                                                 
1Penson 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) 
In response to his counsel’s brief, Shorts only argument on 
appeal is that his trial counsel was ineffective at the suppression hearing.  As 
the State points out, however, this Court will not consider a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal if that 
issue has not been addressed to and decided on the merits by the trial court 
in the first instance.2  The record in this case reflects that, on the day the 
Superior Court denied his suppression motion, Shorts requested a 
continuance in order to obtain substitute counsel.  After the Superior Court 
denied his request for a continuance, Shorts decided to accept the State’s 
plea offer.  During the plea colloquy, Shorts stated under oath that, while he 
was not happy with his counsel, he accepted his counsel’s performance and 
that he was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty because he was, in 
fact, guilty of the charged offenses.  Under these circumstances, we will not 
address his claim of ineffectiveness for the first time on direct appeal.3 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Shorts’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Shorts’ counsel has made a 
                                                 
2 Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 233, 234 (Del. 2008). 
3 See id. 
4 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Shorts 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice