Title: Hampton v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WADE E. HAMPTON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 70, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1101011989 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: June 18, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 16, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 16th day of July 2012, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Wade E. Hampton, pleaded guilty to Rape in 
the Fourth Degree.  He was sentenced to 15 years of Level V incarceration, with 
credit for 239 days served, to be suspended after 2 years for 10 years of Level III 
probation.  This is Hampton’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Hampton’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to the 
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 
 
2
26(c) is twofold:  a) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably 
support the appeal; and b) the Court must conduct its own review of the record to 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable 
issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
 
(3) 
Hampton’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Hampton’s counsel informed Hampton of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and 
the transcript of the guilty plea.  Hampton also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Hampton responded with a brief that raises 
one issue for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Hampton’s counsel as well as the issue raised by Hampton and has moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Hampton raises one overriding issue for this Court’s consideration.  
He claims that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the 
guilty plea proceedings.2  This Court will not consider a claim of ineffective 
                                                 
1 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). 
2 To the extent Hampton claims that he was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, an incorrect 
subsection of Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §770(a) (3), the Superior Court has addressed any such 
error in its corrected sentencing order dated June 19, 2012.  
 
3
assistance of counsel that is asserted for the first time on direct appeal.3  Because 
the claim has not been adjudicated by the Superior Court in the first instance, we 
decline to address it in this proceeding. 
 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Hampton’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Hampton’s counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Hampton 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).