Title: Warrington v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 50, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 27, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAROLD WARRINGTON, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 50, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2204004039 (S)  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 3, 2023 
Decided: 
July 27, 2023 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, 
the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
In May 2022, the appellant, Harold Warrington, was charged by 
information with multiple driving offenses, including seventh offense driving 
under the influence (“DUI”).  On November 9, 2022, Warrington pleaded 
guilty to seventh offense DUI in exchange for the State entering a nolle 
prosequi on the remaining charges.  The State also agreed to recommend 
fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after thirty months under 21 
Del. C. § 4177(d)(8) and (d)(9).  The parties requested immediate sentencing, 
but the Superior Court ordered a presentence investigation. 
 
2 
(2) 
After completion of the presentence investigation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Warrington to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, with 
credit for 281 days previously served, suspended after five years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  The court also ordered Warrington to 
complete a treatment program while serving his Level V sentence.  This 
appeal followed.     
(3) 
On appeal, Warrington’s 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 Warrington of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Warrington with a copy of the motion to withdraw 
and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Warrington of his right 
to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Warrington 
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. 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief, 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 
 
3 
so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided 
without an adversary presentation.1   
(5) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that 
Warrington’s 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 
Warrington could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 
1996).