Title: Williams v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 147, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 16, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID WILLIAMS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 147, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0805027568 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 31, 2009 
Decided:  September 16, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, David Williams (Williams), was 
found guilty following a stipulated bench trial of one count of distribution of 
heroin within 300 feet of a park.  Upon the State’s motion, the Superior 
Court declared Williams to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to ten 
years at Level V incarceration.  This is Williams’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Williams' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Williams' counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Williams' attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Williams with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Williams also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Williams has enumerated 
two issues for the Court's consideration.  The State has responded to 
Williams’ points, as well as to the position taken by Williams' 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:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) this 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.1 
(4) 
Williams raises two related issues.  He contends that: (i) police 
officers had no reasonable suspicion to stop him; and (ii) the officers’ 
patdown search was unjustified.  Williams raised these issues below when 
                                                 
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). 
 
his counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress the heroin that officers found 
on and near him.  The Superior Court denied Williams’ motion.   
(5) 
While we defer to the Superior Court’s factual findings, we 
review de novo the Superior Court’s legal conclusion that the police had 
reasonable suspicion to stop Williams.2 A police stop is justified only if 
there are specific and articulable facts, together with rational inferences, to 
suggest that a suspect is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a 
crime.3 In determining whether reasonable suspicion existed to justify a 
detention, courts will defer to the experience and training of law 
enforcement officers.4 
(6) 
 In this case, officers testified at the suppression hearing that 
they were conducting surveillance in a high crime area.  Officers observed 
Williams walking on the street with another man, whom the officers knew to 
be a drug dealer.  The men separated, and Williams reversed his direction 
while his companion went onto the porch of a residence.  His companion 
then motioned Williams to come over.  Williams stayed on the porch for a 
few seconds and then walked back in the direction from which he had come 
                                                 
2 State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d 379, 382-83 (Del. 2007). 
3 Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257, 1262 (Del. 2001) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 
1, 30 (1968)). 
4 Id. 
and approached a gray Mercedes.  Williams leaned into the driver’s side of 
the vehicle and officers observed him engage in a hand-to-hand transaction.  
As officers approached, Williams quickly walked away and the Mercedes 
drove off.  As they got closer, Williams began walking backwards with his 
hands hidden behind his back.  Fearing for their safety, officers handcuffed 
Williams.  When asked if he had any weapons or drugs, Williams told 
officers that he had empty heroin bags in his rear pocket.  Officers retrieved 
the empty baggies and then noticed a bundle at Williams’ feet, which 
contained 29 individual bags of heroin. 
(7) 
In denying Williams’ motion to suppress, the Superior Court 
found that the totality of the circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion 
for the police officers to stop Williams.  Specifically, the trial court noted 
that the police observed Williams in a high crime area with a known 
criminal.  He stopped twice in a short period for brief transactions.  He 
engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction with a car on the street.  He and the 
car both retreated quickly upon seeing the officers.  Williams also behaved 
suspiciously by walking backwards and hiding his hands behind his back, 
out of the officers’ view, as they approached him. 
(8) 
We find no abuse of discretion or legal error in the Superior 
Court’s denial of Williams’ motion to suppress.  The totality of the 
circumstances supports a finding that the officers had reasonable and 
articulable suspicion to stop Williams.5  Because the officers had reasonable 
suspicion to stop and because Williams was hiding his hands, the officers 
were permitted to conduct a patdown search for their own safety to ensure 
that Williams had no weapons.6   
(9) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Williams’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Williams' counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Williams 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
5 State v. Rollins, 922 A.2d at 386. 
6 Woody v. State, 765 A.2d at 1266 (citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 
(1993)).