Wright v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 19, 2025
• Docket: 480, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ESTHER M. WRIGHT, § § Defendant Below, § No. 480, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2207010733 (K) § Appellee. §

Submitted: April 3, 2025 Decided: May 19, 2025

Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, 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) The appellant, Esther M. Wright, pleaded guilty to first-degree

kidnapping and first-degree conspiracy. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State

dismissed other charges. The Superior Court deferred sentencing and ordered a

presentence investigation. On August 28, 2024, the Superior Court sentenced

Wright as follows: for first-degree kidnapping, twenty-five years of imprisonment,

suspended after twenty years for decreasing levels of supervision; and for first-

degree conspiracy, five years of imprisonment. (2) After sentencing, different counsel was appointed to represent Wright

on appeal. In October 2024, Wright’s appellate counsel submitted a letter to the

Superior Court stating that he had mistakenly missed the deadline to file an appeal

and requesting that the court vacate the August 2024 sentence and resentence Wright

so that counsel could file a timely appeal on her behalf. The Superior Court granted

the request, vacated the August 2024 sentence, and resentenced Wright at a hearing

on October 17, 2024, at which Wright was present with counsel. This appeal

followed.

(3) On appeal, Wright’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 wholly without merit. In his statement

filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Wright of the provisions

of Rule 26(c) and provided her with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the

accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Wright of her right to submit points she

wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Wright did not provide counsel with 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

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

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

Court also must 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

(5) The Court has reviewed the record carefully 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 Wright 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/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

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.