Title: Pritchett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN PRITCHETT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 196, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1106020443 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 30, 2012 
  Decided:  October 10, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In March 2012, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-
appellant, John Pritchett, of two counts of Unlawfully Obtaining a 
Controlled Substance and two counts of Forgery in the Second Degree.1  The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Pritchett to a total period of eight 
years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving 120 days in 
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4756(a)(3) (2003); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 861(b)(2)(e) (2007).  The State 
dismissed two charges of Theft of a Prescription Pad prior to trial. 
2 
 
prison to be followed by two years of Level III probation.  This is Pritchett’s 
direct appeal. 
(2) 
Pritchett’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Pritchett’s counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Pritchett’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Pritchett with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Pritchett also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Pritchett raises three issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to Pritchett’s issues, 
as well as to the position taken by Pritchett’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 
3 
 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.2 
(4) 
The evidence presented at trial established that Pritchett filled 
two prescriptions for Oxycodone at the Family Pharmacy.  The prescriptions 
were written on the prescription pad of Dr. Jeffrey Ciccone.  Pritchett was 
not Dr. Ciccone’s patient, and Dr. Ciccone did not write the prescriptions.  
The arresting officer testified that Pritchett stated that he had received the 
prescriptions from someone named Rena at the emergency room of 
Wilmington Hospital and that Pritchett stated that he did not know the 
prescriptions were fraudulent.  Pritchett did not testify at trial.  The jury 
found him guilty of all charges. 
(5) 
On appeal, Pritchett raised three issues in response to his 
counsel’s motion to withdraw.  First, he contends that he was never read his 
rights under Miranda v. Arizona.3  Second, he contends that the two charges 
of Theft of a Prescription Pad, which the State dismissed before trial, were 
used to convict him of the four remaining charges.  Finally, he contends that 
his trial counsel was ineffective.  This Court, however, will not consider a 
                                                 
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 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 
4 
 
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal.4  
Accordingly, we do not consider that claim here. 
(6) 
Pritchett’s other two claims are unsupported by the record.  The 
arresting officer testified under oath that Pritchett had been read his Miranda 
rights.   Defense counsel cross-examined the officer on this point.  In the 
absence of any evidence to the contrary, we reject Pritchett’s claim on 
appeal.  Moreover, the State did not present any evidence that Pritchett had 
stolen the doctor’s pad used to fill the fraudulent prescriptions.  The only 
evidence presented on the origin of the prescriptions came from the 
testimony of the arresting officer who testified that Pritchett had told him 
that the prescriptions were given to him in the emergency room.  
Accordingly, there is no factual basis in the record to support Pritchett’s 
contention that the State used the two dismissed charges to convict him of 
the remaining charges. 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Pritchett’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Pritchett’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Pritchett could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
4 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
5 
 
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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice