Title: Nixon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 96, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELLIS NIXON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 96, 2022 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 2105000286 (N) 
§                      2104015665 (N) 
§                      2105000006 (N) 
 
Submitted: July 28, 2022 
Decided: 
August 2, 2022 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the State’s response, and the record on 
appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On December 8, 2021, the appellant, Ellis Nixon, resolved four sets of 
criminal charges by pleading guilty to one count of stalking, two counts of contempt 
of a domestic violence protection order, one count of terroristic threatening, and one 
count of noncompliance with bond.  Following a presentence investigation, the 
Superior Court sentenced Nixon to an aggregate of seven years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
is Nixon’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Nixon’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a conscientious review of the entire 
record and the law, she has concluded that this appeal is wholly without merit.  
Nixon’s attorney informed Nixon of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also 
informed Nixon of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Nixon has 
not raised any issues for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Nixon’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.  First, 
the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious 
examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably be raised on 
appeal. 1  Second, the 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.2 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Nixon’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442 
(1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82. 
3 
 
issues.  We also are satisfied that Nixon’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Nixon could not 
raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice