Gonzalez v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOSHUA GONZALEZ, §
§ No. 297, 2018
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID. N1604016007
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: September 26, 2018
Decided: November 15, 2018
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On October 6, 2017, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Joshua
Gonzalez, guilty of Murder in the First Degree, Attempted Murder in the First
Degree, and seven additional related felony offenses. On May 25, 2018, the Superior
Court sentenced him to 140 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after
fifty-five years and six months in prison for decreasing levels of supervision. This
is Gonzalez’s direct appeal.
(2) Gonzalez’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, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Gonzalez’s attorney
informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Gonzalez with a copy of
the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Gonzalez also was informed
of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Gonzalez did not file a written
response raising any issues for this Court’s consideration.1 The State has responded
to the position taken by Gonzalez’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: (a) this
Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination
of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (b) this 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.2
(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Gonzalez’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable
1
Gonzalez orally informed his counsel that he wanted to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
trial counsel, but he did not submit any argument in writing for the Court to review. Even if he
had, this Court will not review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on
direct appeal. Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).
2
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
issue. We also are satisfied that Gonzalez’s counsel has made a conscientious effort
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Gonzalez could
not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is
GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to
withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.
Justice
3