Title: Johnson v. Delaware

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HEIVYN JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 247, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID Nos. K2104008452 
§                     K2104008430 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 21, 2022 
Decided: 
January 4, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Heivyn Johnson, pleaded guilty to criminally negligent 
homicide (as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter) and possession of a firearm 
by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”).  Johnson was a juvenile at the time of the offenses 
and had a history of juvenile adjudications, including for first-degree robbery.  As 
part of the plea agreement, Johnson consented to be prosecuted as an adult in the 
Superior Court; the State dismissed other weapon- and drug-related charges; and the 
parties stipulated that Johnson’s prior juvenile adjudications did not make the 
 
2 
PFBPP offense subject to a minimum-mandatory term of incarceration.1  The 
Superior Court sentenced Johnson to eight years of imprisonment for criminally 
negligent homicide and to eight years of imprisonment, suspended after five years 
for decreasing levels of supervision, for PFBPP.  This is Johnson’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Johnson’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Johnson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.  
In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Johnson 
of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided her with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Johnson of her right 
to submit points she wanted this Court to consider on appeal.  Johnson has not 
submitted any points for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.2  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 
 
1 App. to Opening Brief at A71.  See 11 Del. C. § 1448(e) (establishing minimum-mandatory 
sentences for PFBPP based on a defendant’s prior convictions). 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967).  
 
3 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”3 
(4) 
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Johnson could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
3 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.