Title: Davis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SEKOU DAVIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 448, 2001 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN99-07-0416 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 21, 2002 
  Decided: July 9, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of July 2002, 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, Sekou Davis, was indicted in 1999 for 
numerous drug charges including possession with intent to deliver.  The day 
after the Superior Court denied Davis’s motion to suppress, Davis pled 
guilty to one count of possession of marijuana.  In return for Davis’s plea 
agreement, the State nolle prossed five other criminal charges. Following a 
guilty plea hearing, at which Davis was permitted to address the court at 
length, the Superior Court sentenced Davis, in accordance with the State’s 
 
2
recommendation, to six years at Level V incarceration suspended after two 
and a half years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Davis’s direct 
appeal. 
(2) 
Davis's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Davis's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Davis's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Davis with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Davis also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Davis has raised several issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded Davis’s points, as well as the 
position taken by Davis'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.1 
(4) 
Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that Davis has two 
primary complaints about his guilty plea and sentence.  First, Davis 
complains about his counsel’s performance.  Second, Davis argues that 
certain conditions attached to his sentence rendered his sentence 
contradictory and uncertain and, thus, illegal. 
 
(5) 
With respect to Davis’s first complaint regarding trial counsel’s 
performance, it is settled law that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 
will not be considered for the first time on direct appeal.2  Accordingly, we 
will not review this claim in the first instance. 
 
(6) 
Davis next claims that certain conditions attached to his 
sentence were contradictory and thus rendered his sentence illegal.  Davis 
appears to assert that it was illegal for the Superior Court to order him: (i) to 
be evaluated for drug treatment; (ii) to have no drugs during the period of 
sentence; and (iii) to be assigned to an out-patient drug program.  Davis does 
not elaborate further on the nature of the alleged inconsistency.  This Court’s 
                                                 
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). 
2 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1267-68 (Del. 1985). 
 
 
 
review of a sentence generally is limited to a determination of whether the 
sentence is within the statutory limits.3  Davis’s sentence in this case clearly 
was within statutory limits.  Although Davis contends that his sentence was 
the product of demonstrably false information, he offers no support for his 
contention, and we find no support for this vague allegation in the record.  
Consequently, this claim is denied. 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Davis’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Davis's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Davis 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 845-46 (Del. 1992).