Watson v. State

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ASHA WATSON, § § Defendant Below, § No. 49, 2025 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2306004308 (N) § Appellee. §

Submitted: July 7, 2025 Decided: August 13, 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) A Superior Court jury found the appellant, Asha Watson, guilty of

misdemeanor shoplifting, as a lesser-included offense of felony shoplifting. The

jury acquitted Watson of second-degree conspiracy. The Superior Court sentenced

Watson to one year of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level I probation.

This is Watson’s direct appeal.

(2) Watson’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under

Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is without merit. In his statement filed under

Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he provided Watson with a copy of the motion to

withdraw and the accompanying brief and informed Watson of her right to submit

any points that she wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Watson 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.

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief

under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 This

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary

presentation.”2

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

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 Watson could not raise a meritorious claim on

appeal.

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

2 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