Title: Tucker v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 139, 2022
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
AARON TUCKER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 139, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1901017819 (N) and  
§                      1910013608 (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 6, 2022 
Decided:  November 9, 2022 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, 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) 
In April 2019, a grand jury indicted the appellant, Aaron Tucker, 
for multiple sexual offenses involving a child, including first-degree rape and 
first-degree unlawful sexual contact, in Criminal ID No. 1901017819.  In 
October 2019, a grand jury reindicted Tucker for the criminal offenses in 
Criminal ID No. 1901017819 and new criminal offenses, including interfering 
with a child witness and breach of bond during commitment, in Criminal ID 
No. 1910013608.  On July 7, 2021, Tucker pleaded no-contest to three counts 
of first-degree unlawful sexual contact and breach of bond during 
 
2 
commitment in exchange for the State entering a nolle prosequi on the 
remaining charges.  The parties also agreed to recommend a sentence of five 
years of Level V incarceration.   
(2) 
After completion of a presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Tucker as follows: (i) for the first count of first-degree 
unlawful sexual contact, effective March 14, 2019, eight years of Level V 
incarceration, suspended after three years for decreasing levels of supervision; 
(ii) for each of the remaining counts of first-degree unlawful sexual contact, 
eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after three years for three 
years of Level III supervision; and  (iii) for breach of bond during 
commitment, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after one year for 
one year of Level III probation.    This appeal followed.     
(3) 
On appeal, Tucker’s 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 Tucker of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Tucker with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Tucker of his 
right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Tucker 
has not submitted any points for the Court’s consideration.  The State has 
 
3 
responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s 
judgment should be affirmed. 
(4) 
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.1   
(5) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that 
Tucker’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 Tucker 
could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 
1996).