Title: Gonzalez v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 297, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSHUA GONZALEZ, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 297, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID. N1604016007 
§   
§ 
 
 Submitted:  September 26, 2018 
  Decided: November 15, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 6, 2017, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Joshua 
Gonzalez, guilty of Murder in the First Degree, Attempted Murder in the First 
Degree, and seven additional related felony offenses.  On May 25, 2018, the Superior 
Court sentenced him to 140 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
fifty-five years and six months in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
is Gonzalez’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Gonzalez’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of 
2 
 
the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Gonzalez’s attorney 
informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Gonzalez with a copy of 
the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Gonzalez also was informed 
of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Gonzalez did not file a written 
response raising any issues for this Court’s consideration.1  The State has responded 
to the position taken by Gonzalez’s 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.2 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Gonzalez’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
                                                 
1 Gonzalez orally informed his counsel that he wanted to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of 
trial counsel, but he did not submit any argument in writing for the Court to review.  Even if he 
had, this Court will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on 
direct appeal.  Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
2 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). 
3 
 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Gonzalez’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Gonzalez 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/  James T. Vaughn, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice