Title: Watson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 283, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 19, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EMIL WATSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 283, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. VN02-05-1920-01 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 23, 2004  
  Decided: January 19, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of January 2005, 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) 
In February 2004, the Superior Court found the defendant-
appellant, Emil Watson, guilty of violating the terms of his probation and 
sentenced him to three years at Level V imprisonment.  Watson did not 
appeal.  Instead, he filed a motion for modification of sentence, which the 
Superior Court denied on June 16, 2004. This is Watson’s appeal from the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Watson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Watson's counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Watson's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Watson with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Watson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Watson responded with a 
letter complaining that his VOP sentence is excessive and that, at the time of 
he was found guilty of violating probation, he had not been convicted of the 
underlying criminal charges that formed the basis of the VOP charge. The 
State has responded to the position taken by Watson's counsel, as well as the 
Watson’s points, 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 
 
 
-3- 
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) 
A proceeding under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35 
presupposes a valid conviction.2  To the extent Watson now complains about 
his underlying VOP adjudication, no relief is available to him in this 
proceeding.3   
 
(5) 
To the extent Watson complains that his VOP sentence 
exceeded the Truth in Sentencing guidelines, his motion to modify his 
sentence was filed more than 90 days after his sentence was imposed.4  We 
find no error or abuse in the Superior Court’s denial of Watson’s untimely 
motion.5 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Watson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Watson's counsel has made a 
                                                 
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). 
2 Brittingham v. State, 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998). 
3 Id. 
4 SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 35(b) (motions for reduction of sentence must be filed 
within 90 days after sentence is imposed). 
5 See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Del. 2000). 
 
 
-4- 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Watson 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-5- 
Oc: 
Clerk (orig. +3) 
Xc: 
Hon. Peggy L. Ableman 
 
James A. Bayard, Jr., Esq. 
 
Gregory E. Smith, Esq. 
 
Justices (8) 
 
D. Collins 
 
P. Naylor 
 
File