Saylor v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 182, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CEDRIC SAYLOR, § § No. 182, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 2301009216 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § 2102001459 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: December 23, 2024 Decided: February 24, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the no-merit brief and motion to withdraw filed by the

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the appellee’s response, and

the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:

(1) In March 2023, a Superior Court grand jury indicted the appellant,

Cedric Saylor, for multiple sexual offenses arising out of the alleged sexual abuse of

his biological daughters, J.S. and A.S. At trial, J.S. testified that Saylor sexually

assaulted her on multiple occasions before her twelfth birthday, and A.S. testified

that Saylor sexually assaulted her on one occasion before her thirteenth birthday.

The jury found Saylor guilty of two counts of first-degree rape, one count of

attempted first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual contact, one count of second-degree rape, one count of attempted second-degree rape, one count

of first-degree sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust, two counts of second-

degree sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust, and one count of continuous

sexual abuse of a child. Following a presentence investigation and the State’s

application for enhanced sentencing under 11 Del. C. § 4205A,1 the Superior Court

sentenced Saylor to 142 years of incarceration. This is Saylor’s direct appeal.

(2) Saylor’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw

under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of

the record, he can identify no arguably appealable issues. Saylor’s attorney informed

Saylor of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion

to withdraw and a draft of the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Saylor of

his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Saylor has not raised any issues

for the Court’s consideration. The State of Delaware has responded to the position

taken by Saylor’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(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. First,

the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious

examination of the record and the law for claims that could be arguably be raised on

1 11 Del. C. § 4205A (requiring the Superior Court to impose a minimum sentence of 25 years for various sexual offenses if the victim is less than fourteen). 2 appeal. 2 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.3

(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that

Saylor’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable

issues. We also are satisfied that Saylor’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to

examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Saylor could not

raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 3 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82.