IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

RALPH MAICHLE, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ No. 220, 2021 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. N1908015191 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Submitted: November 22, 2021 

Decided: December 16, 2021 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERYREEVES, Justices. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, 

the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) In October 2019, the appellant, Ralph Maichle, was charged by 

indictment with two counts of drug dealing, two courts of endangering the 

welfare of a child, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. On 

March 2, 2020, Maichle pleaded guilty to one count of drug dealing and one 

count of endangering the welfare of a child in exchange for dismissal of the 

other charges. He also admitted to a violation of probation (“VOP”) for a drug 

dealing conviction in Criminal ID No. 1901008567. 
2

(2) After completion of a presentence investigation, the Superior 

Court sentenced Maichle as follows: (i) for drug dealing, ten years of Level V 

incarceration, suspended after three years for decreasing levels of supervision; 

(ii) for endangering the welfare of a child, one year of Level V incarceration, 

suspended for one year of Level III probation; and (iii) for the VOP in 

Criminal ID No. 1901008567, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended 

after six years. This appeal followed. 

(3) On appeal, Maichle’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a 

motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”). Counsel 

asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, 

there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Maichle of the 

provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Maichle with a copy of the motion to 

withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Maichle of his 

right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. 

Maichle 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. 

(4) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 

brief, this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 

conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and 
3

(ii) 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.1 

(5) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that 

Maichle’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 Maichle 

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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 

1996).