Title: Wilson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EDWARD J. WILSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 129, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0801013042 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: August 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 7th day of August 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Edward J. Wilson, was found guilty 
by a Superior Court jury of Possession of a Deadly Weapon By a Person 
Prohibited.  He was sentenced to 8 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 3 years and 6 months for 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 pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Wilson’s counsel asserts that, based upon 
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 consideration by this Court.  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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguably 
appealable issues; and (b) the 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 
                                                 
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). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Wilson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Wilson’s 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 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice