Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 555, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 30, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERRICK J. SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 555, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1101020846 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 7, 2012 
  Decided: April 30, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of April 2012, 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) 
On July 14, 2011, the defendant-appellant, Derrick Smith, pled 
guilty to one count of Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a 
Felony1 and one count of Attempted Assault in the First Degree2 (as a lesser 
included offense to the indicted offense of Attempted Murder in the First 
Degree).  After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1447A (2007).  
2 Id. §§ 531(2), 613(a)(5). 
2 
 
Smith on September 30, 2011 to a total period of fifty years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after serving thirty years in prison for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Smith’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
Smith's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Smith's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Smith's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Smith with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Smith also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Smith has raised several issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to Smith’s points, as well as to the 
position taken by Smith'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 
3 
 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.3 
(4) 
Smith filed a three-page handwritten document raising four 
discernible issues for the Court’s consideration on appeal.  First, Smith 
complains that his sentence exceeded the sentence recommended by the 
SENTAC guidelines.  Second, Smith contends that his sentence is so 
excessive that it violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and 
unusual punishment.  Third, Smith contends that his trial counsel rendered 
ineffective assistance due to an unspecified conflict of interest.  Finally, 
Smith contends that he was never read his Miranda rights and was never 
given the opportunity to listen to his taped statement to the police.   
(5)  
As a general rule, this Court’s review of a sentence is limited to 
ascertaining whether the sentence is within the statutory limits.4  While a 
defendant may challenge a sentence on the grounds that it is 
unconstitutional, based on false or unreliable information, or the result of 
judicial bias, Delaware does not provide for appellate review of punishments 
simply because the punishment deviates from sentencing guidelines.5  In this 
case, Smith pled guilty to two class B felonies, with an authorized 
                                                 
3 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). 
4 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
5 Id. 
4 
 
sentencing range of two to twenty-five years at Level V imprisonment.6  The 
Superior Court imposed the maximum twenty-five year sentence for each 
crime but suspended the sentence after Smith served thirty years of the total 
fifty-year sentence.  While harsh, the sentence was within the statutory 
limits.  Moreover, the Superior Court found aggravating circumstances to 
justify the sentence because the evidence reflected that Smith already was on 
probation at the time of his crimes and that he unduly depreciated the 
seriousness of the charges, which involved Smith firing a gun at a police 
officer at close range.  Under the circumstances, we find no error in the 
Superior Court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines,7 nor do we find 
any merit to Smith’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional or was 
imposed by a judge with a closed mind.8 
(6) 
Smith next claims that his trial counsel was ineffective due to 
some unspecified conflict of interest.  This Court, however, will not consider 
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on appeal.9 
(7) 
Finally, Smith argues that he was not read his Miranda rights, 
nor was he permitted to view the videotaped statement he made to police.  
                                                 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4205(b)(2) (2007). 
7 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d at 83. 
8 See Fink v. State, 817 A.2d 781, 790 (Del. 2002). 
9 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994). 
5 
 
By voluntarily entering a guilty plea, however, Smith has waived any right 
to object to alleged errors that occurred prior to the entry of his plea.10 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Smith’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Smith's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Smith 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
10 Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2003).