Title: Pennington v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 439, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID PENNINGTON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 439, 2014 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1302020857 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 20, 2014 
Decided: 
December 15, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of December 2014, 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 April 2013, the appellant, David Pennington, was indicted on two 
counts of Dealing in Child Pornography.  On June 20, 2013, Pennington pled 
guilty to one count of Dealing in Child Pornography and one count of Possession 
of Child Pornography.  After a presentence investigation, Pennington was 
sentenced to twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, with credit for 225 days 
previously served, for Dealing in Child Pornography and three years of Level V 
incarceration, followed by six months of Level IV Home Confinement, for 
 
2
Possession of Child Pornography.  In imposing the maximum sentence, the 
Superior Court judge expressed his concern for the risk posed by Pennington to 
children in the community. 
(2) 
  On November 13, 2013, Pennington filed a pro se motion for 
postconviction relief.  In this motion, Pennington argued that there was vindictive 
prosecution because his sentence exceeded the sentencing guidelines and the 
recommendation of the prosecutor, his sentence was improperly enhanced, he 
received no benefit from the plea agreement, and his counsel was ineffective.  The 
Superior Court appointed counsel (“Postconviction Counsel”) to represent 
Pennington and directed Postconviction Counsel to file any amendments to 
Pennington’s motion for postconviction relief by May 30, 2014.   
(3) 
On May 29, 2014, Postconviction Counsel filed a motion to withdraw 
under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(e)(2).  Postconviction counsel represented 
that, after conducting a thorough and conscientious review of the record, law and 
allegations, he had concluded that Pennington’s postconviction claims were wholly 
without merit and devoid of any potentially arguable issues.  Pennington was 
informed of his right to respond to the motion to withdraw by Postconviction 
Counsel and the Superior Court.  Pennington did not respond to the motion to 
withdraw.    
 
3
(4) 
On July 29, 2014, the Superior Court granted Postconviction 
Counsel’s motion to withdraw and denied Pennington’s motion for postconviction 
relief.  The Superior Court concluded that Pennington’s claims were belied by the 
Truth-in-Sentencing guilty plea form and the guilty plea colloquy.  This appeal 
followed.   
(5) 
On appeal, Postconviction Counsel filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  Postconviction Counsel 
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are 
no arguably appealable issues.  Postconviction Counsel informed Pennington of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Pennington with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Postconviction Counsel also informed 
Pennington of his right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on 
appeal.  Pennington did not provide any points for this Court’s consideration.   
(6) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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.1 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
4
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Pennington’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Postconviction Counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined 
that Pennington could not raise a meritorious claim in this 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice