Title: Benner v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 587, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 30, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAWRENCE E. BENNER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 587, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0312002701 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 30, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of November 2007, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Lawrence E. Benner, pleaded guilty to 
six counts of Burglary in the Second Degree and one count of Escape in the 
Second Degree.1  He was sentenced to a total of 38 years of Level V 
                                                 
1 The grand jury’s amended indictment charged Benner with over 70 counts of Burglary, 
Theft, Conspiracy, Criminal Mischief and various weapon offenses. 
 
2
incarceration, to be suspended after 14½ years for a period of work release 
and probation.  This is Benner’s direct appeal.   
 
(2) 
Benner’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims 
that arguably could support the appeal; and (b) 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.2 
 
(3) 
Benner’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Benner’s counsel informed Benner of the provisions of Rule 26(c) 
and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying 
brief and the complete transcript.  Benner also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Benner responded with a brief that 
raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to 
                                                 
2 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). 
 
3
the position taken by Benner’s counsel as well as the issues raised by Benner 
and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
Benner raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that a) the time limit for trial set forth in the Interstate Agreement on 
Detainers was not met; b) he did not commit one of the burglaries to which 
he pleaded guilty; c) he did not commit the escape charge to which he 
pleaded guilty; and d) his counsel provided ineffective assistance in 
connection with his guilty plea. 
 
(5) 
Benner’s first three claims implicate alleged errors or defects 
occurring prior to the entry of his guilty plea.  We have reviewed the 
transcript of Benner’s guilty plea colloquy and it clearly reflects that his plea 
was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.  Because a voluntary 
guilty plea constitutes a waiver of any alleged errors or defects occurring 
prior to the entry of the plea,3 we conclude that Benner’s first three claims 
are without merit. 
 
(6) 
Benner’s final claim is that his counsel provided ineffective 
assistance in connection with his guilty plea.  This Court will not entertain 
an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal.4  
                                                 
3 Miller v. State, 840 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Del. 2003). 
4 Wing v. State, 690 A.2d 921, 923 (Del. 1996). 
 
4
Because Benner’s claim was not presented to the Superior Court in the first 
instance, we decline to decide it in this direct appeal. 
 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Benner’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Benner’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Benner 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
                                      Justice