Title: Stevenson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 290, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 6, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD J. STEVENSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 290, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. No. IK03-02-0598 
§  Cr. ID 0301013593 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 29, 2003 
Decided:  October 6, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of October 2003, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Harold Stevenson, pled guilty in May 2003 
to one count of first degree robbery.  In exchange for his guilty plea, the State 
dismissed four other criminal charges against Stevenson.  The Superior Court 
immediately sentenced Stevenson, in accordance with the recommendation in the 
plea agreement, to ten years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after serving 
three years for one year at Level IV work release, followed by one year at Level III 
 
- 2 - 
probation, followed by one year at Level II probation.  This is Stevenson’s direct 
appeal. 
(2) 
Stevenson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant t
o Rule 26(c).  Stevenson's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Stevenson's attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided Stevenson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Stevenson also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney's presentation.  Stevenson has raised two issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Stevenson's 
counsel, as well as the points raised by Stevenson, 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 
 
 
-3- 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an 
adversary presentation.1 
(4) 
Stevenson first claims that his trial counsel was ineffective.  This 
Court, however, generally will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of 
counsel for the first time on direct appeal. 2  To the extent Stevenson asserts that his 
guilty plea was not voluntary due to his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness, the 
record does not support such a claim.  Stevenson testified under oath that no one 
forced him to plead guilty, that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation, 
and that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty.  In the absence of 
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, Stevenson is bound by these 
representations.3  Stevenson has not presented any evidence that calls into question 
the voluntary nature of his guilty plea. 
(5) 
Stevenson’s second claim is that there were alleged deficiencies in his 
grand jury indictment.  Stevenson’s voluntary plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of 
any alleged defects or errors occurring before the entry of the plea.4 
                                                 
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 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1269 (Del. 1985). 
3 Somerville v. State, 703 A.2d 629, 632 (Del. 1997). 
4 Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312 (Del. 1988). 
 
 
-4- 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Stevenson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Stevenson's counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that 
Stevenson 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/ Myron T. Steele 
Justice