Title: Clements v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 161, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 11, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID L. CLEMENTS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 161, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1509020383 (N) 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  September 17, 2018  
 
Decided: 
 October 11, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
The appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the 
record below reflect that:   
(1) 
On November 29, 2017, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
David L. Clements, guilty of Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”) and 
Resisting Arrest.  The Superior Court sentenced Clements as follows: (i) for CCDW, 
five years of Level V incarceration, with credit for 74 days previously served, 
suspended for one year of Level II probation; and (ii) for Resisting Arrest, a $100.00 
fine.  Based on time Clements had already served at Level V and Level III (GPS), 
the Superior Court modified the CCDW sentence to 364 days of Level V 
 
2 
imprisonment, with credit for 74 days previously served, suspended immediately.  
This is Clements’ direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Clements’ counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  Counsel informed Clements of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
Clements with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Clements of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Clements has not provided any points for 
this Court to consider.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), 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 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
(5) 
Clements’ Resisting Arrest conviction is not subject to appellate review 
because the fine imposed did not exceed $100.00.2  As to Clements’ CCDW 
conviction, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Clements’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Clements could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 This Court's constitutional jurisdiction is limited to hearing criminal appeals “in which the 
sentence shall be death, imprisonment exceeding one month, or fine exceeding One Hundred 
Dollars.” Del. Const. art IV, § 11(1)(b).