Title: Hazzard v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD HAZZARD,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 192, 2009 
 
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. 0807032179 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 24, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
November 2, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 2nd of November 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
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) 
In January 2009, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
Ronald Hazzard, of Driving Under the Influence, Driving with a Suspended 
License, and Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance.  In April 2009, the 
Superior Court sentenced Hazzard to five years at Level V incarceration, 
suspended after six months, for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is 
Hazzard’s direct appeal. 
 
2
 
(2) 
On appeal, Hazzard’s appellate defense counsel (“Counsel”) 
has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).1  The standard and scope of review of a motion to 
withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is two-fold.  First, the 
Court must be satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious examination 
of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal.2  
Second, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine 
whether the appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it 
can be decided without an adversary presentation.3 
 
(3) 
Counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel 
states that he provided Hazzard with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and appendix and advised Hazzard that he had a right to 
supplement Counsel’s presentation.  Hazzard responded with a written 
submission for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to 
Hazzard’s submission as well as the position taken by Counsel and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                          
 
1 Hazzard was represented by different counsel at trial. 
2 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 Id. 
 
3
 
(4) 
In his written submission, Hazzard contends that his trial 
counsel provided ineffective representation in several respects.  The Court 
has not considered Hazzard’s allegations.  It is well-settled that the Court 
does not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that is raised 
for the first time on direct appeal, as it is here.4   
 
(5) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hazzard’s 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 
Hazzard 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
4 “This Court has consistently held it will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of 
counsel on direct appeal if that issue has not been decided on the merits in the trial court.”  
Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).