Title: Wilson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYLER L. WILSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 387, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2208005137 (K) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 24, 20241 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 4, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Rule 26(c), his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court concludes that: 
(1) 
In November 2022, a grand jury charged the appellant, Tyler L. Wilson, 
with first-degree robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, 
second-degree conspiracy, stalking, and non-compliance with bond conditions.  On 
April 26, 2023, Wilson pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery as a lesser included 
offense of first-degree robbery, second-degree conspiracy, and non-compliance with 
bond conditions.  Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle 
 
1 The State filed its response to the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief on April 15, 2024, 
but the transcript of the guilty plea colloquy was not filed with the Court until May 24, 2024. 
2 
 
prosequi on the remaining charges.  After a presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Wilson, effective August 12, 2022, to twelve years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after two years for eighteen months of Level III probation 
with GPS monitoring.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Wilson’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  Counsel informed Wilson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
Wilson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Wilson of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Wilson has not submitted any points for 
this Court’s consideration.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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.2   
 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
3 
 
(5) 
Our review of the record reveals that Wilson was incorrectly informed 
in the Truth-in-Sentencing Guilty Plea Form and the plea colloquy that he faced a 
maximum sentence of nine years Level V imprisonment (five years for second-
degree robbery, two years for second-degree conspiracy, and two years for non-
compliance with bond conditions) instead of twelve years of Level V imprisonment 
(five years for second-degree robbery, two years for second-degree conspiracy, and 
five years for non-compliance with bond conditions).  Wilson was charged with non-
compliance with bond conditions under 11 Del. C. § 2113(c)(1), which provides for 
a maximum prison sentence of up to five years.  The Superior Court ultimately 
sentenced Wilson to twelve years of Level V incarceration (five years for second-
degree robbery, two years for second-degree conspiracy, and five years for non-
compliance with bond conditions), suspended for probation after he served two years 
of Level V incarceration for second-degree robbery.  The Court has held that errors 
like this “during the plea colloquy are more appropriately addressed to the trial court, 
in the first instance, either through a motion for withdrawal of plea or through a Rule 
61 motion” and “accordingly . . . has declined to address such issues for the first time 
on direct appeal.”3 
 
3 See, e.g., Teewia v. State, 2012 WL 1066334, at *1 (Del. Mar. 28, 2012) (noting that defendant 
had been incorrectly informed by his counsel and the Superior Court that he faced a maximum 
Level V sentence of twenty years instead of twenty-five years and declining to address that error 
on direct appeal); Johnson v. State, 962 A.2d 233, 234 (Del. 2008) (“Accordingly, we conclude 
4 
 
(6) 
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Wilson’s appeal is 
wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We also are 
satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
law and has properly determined that Wilson could not raise a meritorious claim in 
this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court be AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
that if the claim challenging the trial court’s acceptance of a guilty plea has not been addressed on 
the merits by the trial court, we will not consider it on direct appeal.”)