Title: Tilghman v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 566, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 5, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERIC TILGHMAN, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 566, 2006 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,                         
§        Court Below--Superior Court  
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, 
v. 
§ 
in and for Kent County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0602007635 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 6, 2007 
Decided: 
September 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of September 2007, upon consideration of the appellant's 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) ("Rule 26(c)"), his 
attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response, it appears to the 
Court that: 
 
(1) 
In April 2006, the appellant, Eric Tilghman, was charged with 
one count each of Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana, Maintaining 
a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances, Possession of Marijuana 
within Three Hundred Feet of a Church, Possession of Marijuana within One 
Thousand Feet of a School, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Possession of 
Drug Paraphernalia and two counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child.  
 
2
On September 19, 2006, Tilghman pleaded guilty to one count of Possession 
with Intent to Deliver Marijuana.  He was sentenced to five years at Level V 
suspended after three years minimum mandatory followed by eighteen 
months at Level III supervision.  This is Tilghman’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Tilghman's appellate defense counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a 
brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).1  Counsel asserts that, 
based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues. 
 
(3) 
Counsel represents that he informed Tilghman of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
Rule 26(c) brief and the appendix to the brief.2  It appears that Counsel also 
informed Tilghman of his right to respond to the motion to withdraw and to 
supplement the Rule 26(c) brief. 
 
(4) 
Tilghman submitted one issue for the Court's consideration, 
namely that his guilty plea was involuntary.3  Tilghman also stated his belief 
that his trial counsel was ineffective; however, he correctly recognized that 
                                                 
1 Tilghman was represented by different counsel in the Superior Court proceedings. 
2 The appendix includes a transcript of the guilty plea hearing. 
3 Tilghman alleges that he was “under [a] state of distress.” 
 
3
the Court does not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on 
direct appeal.4 
 
(5) 
When considering a brief filed pursuant to Rule 26(c), the 
Court's standard and scope of review is twofold.  First, the Court must be 
satisfied that defense counsel made a conscientious examination of the 
record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal.5  
Second, the 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.6 
 
(6) 
Having carefully reviewed the record, it appears to the Court 
that Tilghman’s claim of involuntary guilty plea is refuted by the transcript 
of the guilty plea colloquy and the truth-in-sentencing guilty plea form that 
Tilghman signed and submitted to the Superior Court.7  In the absence of 
                                                 
4 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1269 (Del. 1985). 
5Penson 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 (1967).   
6Id. 
7Tilghman checked a box on the guilty plea form indicating that he had “freely and 
voluntarily decided to plead guilty.”  Twice when the trial judge asked Tilghman whether 
he was entering the guilty plea “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” Tilghman 
responded “yes.” Tilghman also responded “yes” when the trial judge asked if he had, in 
fact, committed the offense.  Tilghman answered “no” when the trial judge asked whether 
anyone had forced him to plead guilty.  Hr’g Tr. at 77, 80, 81 (Sept. 19, 2006).     
 
4
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Tilghman is bound by those 
representations.8 
 
(7) 
The Court has concluded that Tilghman's appeal is wholly 
without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied 
that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and properly 
determined that Tilghman 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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
                                                 
8 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997).