Title: Wilson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KATRINA L. WILSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 580, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN03-05-0170 and  
§  -0171 
§  Cr. ID 0304007591 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 26, 2004 
  Decided: June 28, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of June 2004, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme 
Court Rule 26(c) brief, her attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response 
thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Katrina Wilson, was convicted by a Superior 
Court jury of first degree assault and possession of a deadly weapon during the 
commission of a felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Wilson to a total period of 
four years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after two years for two years of 
probation.  This is Wilson’s direct appeal. 
(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 
 
 
-2- 
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Wilson's attorney informed her 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 her right to supplement her attorney's presentation.  
Wilson has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration.  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) 
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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Wilson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Wilson's counsel has made a conscientious effort 
                                                 
*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- 
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