Matthews v. State
This text of Matthews v. State (Matthews v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DOUGLAS MATTHEWS, § § No. 269, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. 2207004584, § 2207005476 (N) Appellee. § §
Submitted: January 16, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
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) In July 2022, Douglas Matthews assaulted his girlfriend and then fled
from police. The charges arising from his assault of his girlfriend were brought in
Cr. ID No. 2207004584 and the charges arising from his flight from police were
brought in Cr. ID No. 2207005476. He was arrested in November 2022. In April
2023, a grand jury indicted Matthews in both cases for first-degree burglary,
second-degree assault, disregarding a police officer’s signal, and other crimes. (2) On September 5, 2023, Matthews pleaded guilty to first-degree
burglary, second-degree assault, resisting arrest, and stalking in exchange for
dismissal of the other charges. Sentencing was deferred so that Matthews could
provide mitigation evidence. After Matthews sent a letter requesting withdrawal of
his plea because he was misadvised, his counsel moved to withdraw and the
Superior Court appointed new counsel to represent Matthews.
(3) Matthews’ new counsel subsequently advised the court that Matthews
no longer wished to withdraw his plea. On June 7, 2024, the Superior Court
sentenced Matthews as follows: (i) for first-degree burglary, effective November 7,
2022, ten years of Level V incarceration, suspended after four years for decreasing
levels of supervision; (ii) for second degree assault, three years of Level V
incarceration; (iii) for stalking, one year of Level V incarceration; and (iv) for
resisting arrest, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for six months of
Level III probation. The Superior Court subsequently modified the effective date
to October 19, 2022. This appeal followed.
(4) On appeal, Matthews’ counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion
to withdraw under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel
informed Matthews of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of
the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
2 (5) Counsel also informed Matthews of his right to identify any points he
wished this Court to consider on appeal. Matthews has not provided points for this
Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(6) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief
under Rule 26(c), 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 so totally
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an
adversary presentation. 1
(7) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Matthews appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable
issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine
the record and the law and has properly determined that Matthews could not raise a
meritorious claim on appeal.
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).
3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matthews v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-del-2025.