Title: Anderson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 578, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEENAN ANDERSON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 578, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1705015040 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 5, 2019 
 
Decided: 
May 14, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the 
State’s response, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
On January 23, 2018, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Keenan 
Anderson, guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFBPP”) and 
Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”) and not guilty of Possession of 
Firearm Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”).  After granting the State’s 
motion to declare Anderson a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(c), the 
Superior Court sentenced Anderson as follows: (i) for PFBPP, fifteen years of Level 
 
2 
V incarceration; (ii) for CCDW, eight years of Level V incarceration.1  This is 
Anderson’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
In August 2017, Anderson was charged by indictment with multiple 
crimes, including PFBPP, PABPP, and CCDW.2  At trial, Detective Raymond 
Mullin of the Wilmington Police Department testified that he arrested Anderson on 
May 23, 2017.3  During a pat-down search of Anderson, Detective Mullin found a 
gun concealed in Anderson’s pants.   
(3) 
Detective Mullin testified that he removed the magazine from the gun 
and turned both over to Detective Alexis Schupp, who tagged them for evidence.  
Detective Schupp testified that there were seven bullets in the magazine.  He also 
testified that Anderson did not have a permit for the gun.  Detective Joran Merced 
interviewed Anderson who admitted that he had a gun.  The State played a redacted 
version of the interview at trial.  
(4) 
The parties stipulated that Anderson was prohibited from possessing a 
gun.  Anderson exercised his right not to testify and did not submit any evidence.  
The jury found Anderson guilty of PFBPP and CCDW.  The jury found Anderson 
not guilty of PABPP.  This appeal followed. 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court also sentenced Anderson for violations of probation. 
2 The other charges were severed. 
3 The parties stipulated that Anderson was lawfully detained. 
 
3 
(5) 
On appeal, Anderson’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and 
a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Counsel informed Anderson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Anderson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief.   
(6) 
Counsel also informed Anderson of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Anderson has raised points for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(7) 
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) 
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  Anderson argues that three jurors should not have served 
on the jury because: (i) one juror stated in the jury questionnaire that he knew 
someone in law enforcement, but failed (as did several other prospective jurors) to 
come forward initially when the Superior Court instructed such people to come 
                                                 
4 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
4 
forward for further questioning; (ii) one juror provided an insufficiently definitive 
response regarding whether three relatives in law enforcement would impact his 
ability to be impartial; and (iii) one juror’s father was a magistrate judge and knew 
two law enforcement officers. 
(8) 
These claims were not raised below so we review for plain error.5  Plain 
error “is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; 
which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly 
deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.”6  
In addressing juror impartiality, this Court has explained: 
Determinations of juror impartiality are the responsibility of the trial 
judge who has the opportunity to question the juror, observe his or her 
demeanor, and evaluate the ability of the juror to render a fair verdict. 
Because the trial court's findings will largely rest on the judge's 
personal observation of the voir dire proceedings and on the credibility 
of the parties, a reviewing court should give those findings great 
deference.7 
 
(9) 
The Superior Court judge asked each of the three jurors whether they 
could be fair and impartial in light of their relation to people who worked in law 
enforcement.  All three jurors responded that they could be fair and impartial.  The 
juror who stated “I don’t think so” when asked whether he thought three relatives in 
law enforcement would make him unable to be impartial, also stated “I’m a 
                                                 
5 Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
6 Wainwright v. State, 504 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Del. 1986). 
7 DeShields v. State, 534 A.2d 630, 636 (Del. 1987) (citations omitted). 
 
5 
scientist….And I analyze the data before I make a judgment.”8  The Superior Court 
was in the best position to evaluate the ability of the three jurors to render a fair 
verdict.  Anderson has not shown any plain error in the Superior Court’s 
determination that these jurors could render a fair verdict. 
(10) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Anderson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Anderson 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
8 Appendix to Appellant’s Opening Brief at A28.