Title: Wilson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL WILSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   No. 140, 2018 
§ 
§   Court Below:  Superior Court 
§   of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   Cr. ID K1702006069 
§   
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 19, 2018 
Decided: 
July 30, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In December 2017, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
Michael Wilson, of one count Aggravated Drug Possession and one count of 
Marijuana Possession.  The jury acquitted him of five other charges.  On February 
15, 2018, the Superior Court sentenced Wilson to a total period of fifteen years at 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon successful completion of the Level V 
Key program, followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Wilson’s direct 
appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Wilson’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Wilson’s counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Wilson’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Wilson 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Wilson also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Wilson has not raised 
any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Wilson’s 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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Wilson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Wilson’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
                                                 
*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 
 
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 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice