Title: Anderson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HARRY W. ANDERSON, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 136, 2014 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0012001083 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 4, 2014 
Decided: 
November 11, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of November 2014, upon careful consideration of the 
appellant’s brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, the State’s response, the appellant’s points, and the 
State’s supplemental response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 4, 2001, the appellant, Harry W. Anderson 
(“Anderson”) pled guilty to Assault in the Second Degree and was sentenced 
to two years at Level V suspended for twenty-two months at Level III.  On 
January 24, 2002, Anderson was found in violation of probation and was 
discharged from probation as unimproved. 
2 
 
(2) 
On August 15, 2013, Anderson filed a motion for 
postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”).  
Anderson alleged that his 2001 guilty plea was coerced due to ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  By order dated September 3, 2013, the Superior Court 
appointed counsel to represent Anderson. 
(3) 
On January 7, 2014, Anderson’s counsel (hereinafter 
“Counsel”) filed a motion to withdraw under Rule 61(e)(2).1  Counsel 
represented that he had undertaken a thorough review of the record to 
evaluate Anderson’s claims and had determined that the claims were without 
merit, and that the record did not reflect any other grounds for relief.  
Moreover, Counsel represented that, under Rule 61(a), Anderson had no 
standing to seek relief because he was no longer “in custody or subject to 
future custody” on the sentence imposed on the 2001 Assault conviction.2 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(e)(2) (“If counsel considers the movant’s claim to be so 
lacking in merit that counsel cannot ethically advocate it, and counsel is not aware of any 
other substantial ground for relief available to the movant, counsel may move to 
withdraw.”). 
2 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a):  
This rule governs the procedure on an application by a 
person in custody or subject to future custody under a 
sentence of this court seeking to set aside a judgment or 
conviction . . . on the ground that the court lacked 
jurisdiction or on any other ground that is a sufficient 
factual and legal basis for a collateral attack upon a 
criminal conviction.  
3 
 
(4) 
The Superior Court agreed with Counsel’s position.  By 
corrected order dated February 19, 2014, the Superior Court granted 
Counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied Anderson’s pro se motion for 
postconviction relief, after finding that Anderson had no standing to pursue 
postconviction relief and there were no meritorious grounds for relief.  This 
appeal followed. 
(5) 
On appeal, Counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  Counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  In points that he submitted for the Court’s consideration, 
Anderson challenges the 2001 warrant, the indictment, and asserts that his 
trial counsel and Counsel were ineffective because they did not investigate 
the events underlying the assault charge.  The State has responded to 
Anderson’s points and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(6) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s 
counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for 
arguable claims.3  The Court must also conduct its own review of the record 
                                          
 
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 
 
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   
(7) 
Under Delaware law, once a criminal sentence is 
completed, any postconviction claim with respect 
to that conviction is moot because the defendant is 
no longer ‘in custody or subject to future custody’ 
as a result of that conviction.5  The only exception 
to the rule is when the defendant ‘suffers collateral 
legal disabilities or burdens.’6  The defendant has 
the burden of ‘demonstrating specifically a right 
lost or disability or burden imposed, by reason of 
the instant conviction.’7 
  
(8) 
In this case, Anderson is no longer in custody or subject to 
future custody on the sentence imposed on the Assault conviction that is the 
subject of his motion for postconviction relief.  And nowhere does he 
specifically identify a right lost or disability or burden imposed as a result of 
the conviction to overcome the general rule mooting his claims for relief.  
As a result, Anderson lacks standing to move for postconviction relief under 
Rule 61.     
(9) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Anderson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
                                          
 
4 Id. 
5 Paul v. State, 2011 WL 3585623, at *1 (Del. Aug. 15, 2011) (quoting Del. Super. Ct. 
Crim. R. 61(a)(1)). 
6 Id. (quoting Gural v. State, 251 A.2d 344, 344-45 (Del. 1969). 
7 Id. 
5 
 
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Anderson 
could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice