Title: Cardwell v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN CARDWELL,  
 
§ 
§ 
No.  136, 2015 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware, in and   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County  
§ 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1312007653   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: August 13, 2015 
Decided: 
October 20, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of October 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his defense counsel’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State of Delaware’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 28, 2014, the appellant, Steven Cardwell, pled 
guilty to one count each of Robbery in the First Degree, Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, and Wearing a 
Disguise During the Commission of a Felony.  At sentencing on February 
13, 2015, Cardwell was declared a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 
4214(a) and was sentenced to twenty-five years at Level V for Robbery in 
the First Degree.  For Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the 
2 
 
Commission of a Felony, Cardwell was sentenced to two years at Level V, 
and for Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony, Cardwell 
was sentenced to five years at Level V suspended for one year of Level III 
probation.  This is Cardwell’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, Cardwell’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).1  Defense counsel 
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, 
there are no arguably appealable issues.  Defense counsel represents that he 
provided Cardwell with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief and informed Cardwell of his right to identify any 
points he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Cardwell 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.2 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the 
appellant’s defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the 
                                
1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
2 The Court has disregarded the State’s response to the extent it addresses Cardwell’s 
March 13, 2015 letter notifying the Court that he wanted to file an appeal and briefly 
listing the reasons why.  Cardwell’s March 13 letter was not submitted in response to the 
Rule 26(c) submission proposed by his defense counsel in June, 2015.  Moreover, it 
appears that the substance of the letter is raised in greater detail in the form of claims in 
Cardwell’s motion for postconviction relief that was filed on March 13, 2015, and 
remains pending in the Superior Court.  
3 
 
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 
(4) 
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 Cardwell’s appeal “is wholly without merit.”6  The 
Court is satisfied that Cardwell’s defense counsel made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that 
Cardwell 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/ 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 See supra note 1.