Title: Lewis v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 622, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 11, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALFRED LEWIS,  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 622, 2009 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0812009803 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 17, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 11, 2010 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 11th day of May 2010, 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) 
In April 2009, the appellant, Alfred Lewis, was indicted on 
charges of Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, Possession with 
Intent to Deliver Cocaine, Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, 
Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited, two counts of 
Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled Substances, and four counts 
of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony,  On 
September 29, 2009, Lewes pled guilty to two counts of Possession of a 
 
2
Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and was immediately 
sentenced, as contemplated by the plea agreement, to a total of ten years at 
Level V incarceration followed by six months at Level III probation.  This is 
Lewis’ direct appeal. 
 
 
(2) 
On appeal, Lewis’ defense counsel has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  
Lewis’ counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination 
of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. 
 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review of a motion to withdraw and 
an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is two-fold.  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 support the appeal.1  
Second, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine 
whether the appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it 
can be decided without an adversary presentation.2    
 
(4) 
Defense counsel provided Lewis, as required, with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw, the Rule 26(c) brief and appendix, and the transcript of 
the September 29, 2009 guilty plea hearing and sentencing.  Defense counsel 
                                          
 
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 Id. 
 
3
also advised Lewis by letter that he had a right to supplement the brief and to 
file a response to the motion to withdraw.   
 
(5) 
In response to his defense counsel’s letter, Lewis submitted 
what the State aptly describes as a 23-page “litany of challenges to his 
convictions.”  The State has responded to Lewis’ submission as well as the 
Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior 
Court. 
 
(6) 
Lewis’ submission argues the following claims:  defective 
indictment, malicious prosecution, excessive bail, trial court error when 
denying a motion to suppress, discovery violations, lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction, due process violations, a double jeopardy violation, false police 
affidavits and illegal search.  Lewis also argues that his guilty plea was 
involuntary.  
 
(7) 
The disposition of all of Lewis’ claims hinges on the Court’s 
determination of one claim, namely that his guilty plea was involuntary.  It is 
well-settled that a knowing and intelligent guilty plea waives any objection 
to alleged errors or defects occurring prior to the entry of the plea.3   
 
(8) 
The record in this case reflects that Lewis intelligently and 
voluntarily entered his guilty plea with full knowledge of the rights that he 
                                          
 
3 Powell v. State, 2010 WL 572129 (Del. Supr.) (citing Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 
1232 (Del. 2003)). 
 
4
was waiving as a result of pleading guilty.  In the absence of clear and 
convincing evidence to the contrary, Lewis is bound by his sworn statements 
during the guilty plea colloquy.4 
 
(9) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Lewis’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that defense counsel made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Lewis 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/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
4 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).