Warrington v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 50, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HAROLD WARRINGTON, § § No. 50, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2204004039 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

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) 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

2 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).