Title: Ellegood v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 104, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BENJAMIN ELLEGOOD,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 104, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-10-0306
§  and -0307
§
Submitted: May 21, 2001
  Decided:
June 26, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 26th day of June 2001, upon consideration of the appellant's brief
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney's motion to withdraw,
and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
In March 2001, the defendant-appellant, Benjamin Ellegood
(“Ellegood”), pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft and one count of
terroristic threatening. The Superior Court sentenced Ellegood to a total of two
years at Level 5 imprisonment, suspended for time served, with the balance to
be served at Level III probation.  This is Ellegood’s direct appeal.
1Penson 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-
(2)
Ellegood’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Ellegood’s counsel asserts that, based upon
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Ellegood’s attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Ellegood with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Ellegood also was informed of his right
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Ellegood has raised several issues for
this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by
Ellegood’s counsel as well as the points raised by Ellegood and has moved to
affirm the Superior Court's decision.
(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 
2Accord Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(b).
-3-
(4)
Ellegood’s first assertion is that the Superior Court lacked
jurisdiction over him because the Court of Common Pleas had dismissed the
charges against him at his preliminary hearing. The record reflects that
Ellegood was arrested on September 12, 2000 on charges of second degree
robbery and terroristic threatening. On September 21, 2000, the Court of
Common Pleas dismissed the charges and discharged Ellegood. On October 10,
2000, however, a grand jury indicted Ellegood on charges of attempted first
degree robbery, second degree robbery, and terroristic threatening. On
December 20, 2000, Ellegood, who was rearrested and committed in default of
bail, applied for state habeas corpus relief on the ground that the dismissal of
the charges at the preliminary hearing precluded his subsequent reindictment.
The Superior Court summarily denied that petition, and Ellegood did not
appeal.
(5)
Superior Court Criminal Rule 5.1(b) expressly states that the
dismissal of a criminal charge at a preliminary hearing “shall not preclude the
state from instituting a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.”2 This
Court previously has held that a subsequent indictment on criminal charges
cures “any defect or irregularity, jurisdictional or procedural, in the original
3Evan v. Redman, Del. Supr., No. 4, 1987, Horsey, J. (Apr. 28, 1987) (ORDER).
4See Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956).
5Claire v. State 294 A.2d 836, 838 (1972).
6Desmond v. State, Del. Supr., 654 A.2d 821, 829 (1994); Duross v. State, Del. Supr.,
494 A.2d 1265, 1267 (1985).  
-4-
complaint, warrant, or preliminary hearing.”3 Accordingly, we find no merit to
Ellegood’s first contention.
(6)
Ellegood’s second complaint is that, because the State initially
charged him only with second degree robbery and terroristic threatening, it was
improper for the State to indict him later for attempted first degree robbery in
addition to the other charges. To the extent Ellegood is challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his indictment on a charge of attempted
first degree robbery, there is no right to challenge the adequacy of the evidence
underlying an indictment.4 To the extent Ellegood is challenging some other
defect in the indictment, his guilty plea operates as a waiver of any such claim.5
Accordingly, we find no merit to Ellegood’s second contention.
(7)
Finally, Ellegood contends that his attorney was ineffective for
failing to raise the previous two issues as grounds for dismissing the
indictment. This Court, however, will not consider on direct appeal any claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel that was not raised below.6  Accordingly,
-5-
we will not consider Ellegood’s claim of ineffective assistance for the first time
in this direct appeal.
(8)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Ellegood’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Ellegood’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that
Ellegood 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/Joseph T. Walsh
         Justice