Title: Boyce v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD BOYCE, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  397, 2015 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1405014161 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: December 23, 2015 
Decided: 
March 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.  
 
ORDER 
 
 
This  1st day of March 2016, having considered the no-merit brief and 
motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel and the response filed by the 
State of Delaware, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In August 2014, the appellant, Ronald Boyce, was indicted on one 
count each of Burglary in the Third Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a 
Person Prohibited, Possession of Burglar’s Tools, Theft, and Criminal Mischief.  
At final case review on December 29, 2014, Boyce agreed to plead guilty to 
Burglary in the Third Degree and Possession of Burglar’s Tools, and the State 
agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the other charges in the indictment.  The plea 
agreement provided that the State would seek habitual offender sentencing for 
2 
 
Burglary in the Third Degree and would recommend no more than ten years at 
Level V for that conviction.  And Boyce agreed that he was eligible for sentencing 
as a habitual offender based on convictions in 1995, 2003, 2007 and 2012.  Also, 
the parties agreed to a one-year suspended sentence for Possession of Burglar’s 
Tools and to a presentence investigation. 
 
(2) 
On July 17, 2015, after the presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court granted the State’s motion to declare Boyce a habitual offender and 
sentenced him to ten years at Level V for Burglary in the Third Degree and to one 
year at Level V suspended for probation for Possession of Burglar’s Tools.  This is 
Boyce’s direct appeal. 
 
(3) 
On appeal, Boyce’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”)1 has filed a no-
merit brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).2   Counsel 
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are 
no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel represents that he provided Boyce with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw, Rule 26, and the no-merit brief in draft form, and 
a letter requesting that Boyce send him written points for the Court’s consideration.  
Boyce did not submit 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. 
                                
1 Boyce was represented by different counsel in the Superior Court. 
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing appeals without merit). 
3 
 
 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.3  Also, 
the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine “whether the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”4 
 
(5) 
In this case, having conducted “a full examination of all the 
proceedings” and having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal,”5 the Court 
concludes that Boyce’s direct appeal “is wholly without merit.”6    The Court is 
satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
law and properly determined that Boyce could not raise a meritorious claim on 
direct 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                
3 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). 
4 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81. 
5 Id. at 80.  
6 Supra note 2.