Stephenson v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSHUA STEPHENSON, §
§
Defendant Below, § No. 88, 2019
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1808013518 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: October 21, 2019
Decided: December 3, 2019
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, 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) The appellant, Joshua Stephenson, appeals from his convictions and
sentencing for charges of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct, following a
bench trial. The evidence at trial reflected that on July 4, 2018, staff at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center, where Stephenson was an inmate, received notification
that a fire-suppression sprinkler in Stephenson’s cell had “popped,” and water was
flooding the cell and nearby cells. The sprinklers in the prison have a tamper-
resistant, recessed design and are located approximately seven and a half feet from
the floor. “Popping” refers to releasing the sprinkler head by prying it out of its
recessed position. When sprinklers are popped, the water supply to the building
must be turned off until maintenance staff can replace the sprinkler; while the water
supply is turned off, the fire-suppression system is nonfunctional and no running
water flows to the toilets and sinks in the cells. Stephenson was the only person in
the cell when the sprinkler was popped.
(2) After the July 4, 2018 incident, Stephenson was moved to a different
cell. On July 13, 2018, the sprinkler in Stephenson’s new cell was popped, causing
another flood. Again, Stephenson was the only person in the cell at the time.
Stephenson was moved to a different cell and, later that day, the sprinkler in that
third cell was popped.
(3) After a bench trial, the Superior Court found Stephenson guilty of three
counts of criminal mischief and two counts of disorderly conduct. The court
sentenced him to two years’ incarceration, suspended after thirty days, for each of
the counts of criminal mischief and to thirty days’ incarceration for each of the
counts of disorderly conduct.
(4) This is Stephenson’s direct appeal. Stephenson proceeded pro se at
trial; his standby counsel filed the notice of appeal. Stephenson’s counsel then filed
a motion to stay the proceedings until a competency evaluation ordered by the
Superior Court in an unrelated proceeding could be completed and the Superior
2
Court could determine whether Stephenson wished to proceed pro se on appeal. The
motion further requested that this case be remanded for those purposes. The Court
granted the motion. On remand, the Superior Court found that Stephenson is
competent but does not have the educational background or the knowledge of the
rules of procedure, substantive law, or rules of evidence to proceed without the
assistance of counsel. The Superior Court found that Stephenson had stated that he
did not want to proceed with the appeal pro se, and therefore concluded that counsel
should prosecute this appeal. After the case returned from remand, this Court
ordered that Stephenson’s counsel would continue to represent Stephenson on
appeal, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 26.
(5) Stephenson’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under
Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Stephenson’s 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
Stephenson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the
motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Stephenson
of his right to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Stephenson
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
(6) 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
(7) 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 Stephenson 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/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 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.
4