Title: Miller v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 78, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CURTIS MILLER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 78, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§ Cr. ID No. 1609003878 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 1, 2019 
Decided: 
November 13, 2019 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The evidence at trial reflected that on September 5, 2016, Chicka Wilks 
attended a social gathering at her cousin’s house.  At the event, she asked the 
appellant, Curtis Miller, to repay $20 she had previously loaned to him.  Wilks and 
Miller argued, and Miller spat on Wilks and slapped her face with some money.  
Wilks left the party and reported the incident to Officer Akil of the Wilmington 
Police Department.  She then returned to the party.  After her return, an argument 
arose between Miller and Wilks’s cousin concerning the $20 loan, and Miller 
 
2 
punched Wilks in the face.  Wilks left the party again to report the second incident 
to the police.  Wilks requested medical care, and Officer Akil called for an 
ambulance.  Officer Akil followed the ambulance to the hospital and met Wilks there 
to gather information about the second incident. 
(2) 
As Officer Akil was preparing to leave the hospital late that evening 
after speaking with Wilks, a member of the hospital staff reported to him that another 
assault victim had arrived.  Officer Akil went to investigate, and identified the victim 
as Kelvin Bush, whom the officer recognized from his patrol area.  Bush was heavily 
intoxicated and had sustained significant injuries to his face, including a broken jaw 
that had to be wired shut for approximately two weeks.  When Officer Akil asked 
Bush who had inflicted these injuries, Bush stated that he and Curtis Miller had been 
joking around when it turned physical.  Officer Akil then indicated that he would be 
seeking a warrant for Miller’s arrest, and Bush immediately recanted, saying that 
“Curtis wouldn’t have done this to me, that’s my boy.  He wouldn’t do that to me.”   
(3) 
Bush appeared at trial under a material witness warrant; he testified that 
he could not remember anything about the night of September 5, including how he 
sustained the injuries or speaking to Officer Akil.  He stated that he was highly 
intoxicated that evening and did not recall anything that occurred before he woke up 
in the hospital the next day.  Wilks testified that she saw Bush at the party; Bush 
testified that he did not see Wilks on September 5.   
 
3 
(4) 
Bush’s sister testified that Miller, Wilks, and Bush were at the party; 
that they argued over $20 and spat at each other; that Miller punched Wilks in the 
face; and that Miller hit Bush repeatedly in the face until he was unconscious.  
Miller’s fiancée, who was also Wilks’s cousin, testified that she attended the party 
and that Bush and his sister were not there.  She further testified that Miller and 
Wilks did not interact at the party, but that Wilks was involved in a big fight that 
broke out outside the residence, and Miller attempted to break up the fight. 
(5) 
A Superior Court jury found Miller guilty of Assault in the Second 
Degree for assaulting Bush and guilty of Assault in the Third Degree for assaulting 
Wilks.  The Superior Court sentenced Miller as follows:  for Assault in the Second 
Degree, as a habitual offender, to thirteen years of imprisonment, suspended after 
eight years for two years of probation; and for Assault in the Third Degree, to one 
year of imprisonment, suspended for one year of probation.  Miller has appealed to 
this Court.  
(6) 
Miller’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Miller’s counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious 
review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.  In his statement 
filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Miller of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Miller of his right to submit points he 
 
4 
wanted this Court to consider on appeal.  Miller has not submitted any points for the 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and argues 
that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  
(7) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine “whether the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”2 
(8) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Miller could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal. 
 
 
                                               
 
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 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81. 
 
5 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot.  
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice