Title: Wilson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 525, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD J. WILSON,  
 
§ 
§ 
No.  525, 2013 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below – Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in   
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County  
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1301011903 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
  
 
Submitted: January 27, 2014 
Decided: 
April 4, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of April 2014, 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, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 4, 2013, the appellant, Ronald J. Wilson, pled 
guilty to a third offense of Driving under the Influence (“DUI”).  The 
Superior Court sentenced him to two years at Level V supervision suspended 
after ninety days for eighteen months at Level III probation.  This is 
Wilson’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
On appeal, Wilson’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”)1 has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) 
(“Rule 26(c)”).2  Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Wilson 
has submitted an issue for the Court’s consideration.  The State has 
responded to Wilson’s claim and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that Counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.3  
The Court must also 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.4 
(4) 
On appeal, Wilson contends that his Superior Court defense 
counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with his guilty plea. 
This Court will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that 
                                
1 Wilson was represented by different counsel in the Superior Court. 
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
3 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).  
4 Id. 
3 
 
is asserted for the first time on direct appeal.5  Because the claim has not 
been adjudicated by the Superior Court in the first instance, we decline to 
address the claim in this proceeding. 
(5) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Wilson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Wilson 
could not raise a meritorious claim on direct 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 
                                
5 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).