Title: Mills v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 113, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 29, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RYDELL MILLS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§    No. 113, 2019 
§ 
§    Court Below—Superior Court 
§    of the State of Delaware 
§   
§    Cr. ID. No. 1708012318 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 2, 2019 
Decided:  October 29, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, 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) 
After a three-day trial in February 2018, a Superior Court jury found 
Rydell Mills guilty of drug dealing (cocaine), drug dealing (heroin), possession of 
drug paraphernalia, felony resisting arrest by force or violence (two counts), and 
loitering.  After granting the State’s petition to declare Mills an habitual offender as 
to his two convictions for resisting arrest, the Superior Court sentenced Mills as 
follows: (i) for drug dealing (cocaine), twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after ten years for decreasing levels of supervision; (ii) for drug dealing 
(heroin), fifteen years of Level V incarceration suspended after six years for eighteen 
 
2 
months of Level III probation; (iii) for each resisting arrest conviction, two years of 
Level V incarceration; (iv) for possession of drug paraphernalia, a $100 fine and six 
months of Level V incarceration suspended for six months of Level II probation; and 
(v)  for loitering, a $345 fine.   
(2) 
On appeal, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.1  The Court 
reversed one of Mill’s two convictions for resisting arrest because the second 
conviction violated the multiplicity doctrine.2  The Court also reversed Mill’s 
conviction for heroin drug dealing based on an erroneous jury instruction and 
remanded for a new trial, unless the State accepted entry of a conviction for the 
lesser-included offense of heroin possession with an aggravating factor.3  The Court 
vacated Mills’s sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its 
opinion.4 
(3) 
On remand, the State elected to accept the lesser-included offense and 
not to retry Mills for heroin drug dealing.  For resentencing, the State asked, under 
White v. State,5 the Superior Court to increase several of Mills’s sentences so that he 
would again be sentenced to twenty years of non-suspended Level V time.  Mills 
                                                 
1 Mills v. State, 201 A.3d 1163 (Del. 2019). 
2 Id. at 1169-75. 
3 Id. at 1178-80. 
4 Id. at 1181. 
5 576 A.2d 1322, 1324-29 (Del. 1990) (holding there was no double jeopardy or due process 
violation where the defendant successfully appealed one conviction and the Superior Court 
resentenced him within the combined duration of the original sentences imposed). 
 
3 
asked for imposition of the original sentences for the offenses that remained after his 
appeal.  
(4) 
The Superior Court accepted the State’s recommendation and 
resentenced Mills as follows: (i) for drug dealing (cocaine), twenty-five years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of 
supervision; (ii) for heroin possession, one year of Level V incarceration; (iii) for 
resisting arrest, four years of Level V incarceration; (iv) for possession of drug 
paraphernalia, a $100 fine and six months of Level V incarceration suspended for 
six months of Level II probation; and (v)  for loitering, a $345 fine.  This is Mills’s 
direct appeal.   
(5) 
Mills’s appellate 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 Mills of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Mills with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  
Counsel also informed Mills of his right to identify any points he wished this Court 
to consider on appeal.  Mills informed Counsel that he did not wish to submit any 
points.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior 
Court’s judgment should be affirmed. 
 
4 
(6) 
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 (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.6   
(7) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concludes that Mills’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 Mills could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal.7 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
6 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
7 The parties have not addressed what, if any effect, this Court’s decision in Longford-Myers v. 
State, 213 A.3d 556 (Del. 2019) has on the issues presented on this appeal.  We, therefore, have 
not considered that question.