State of Delaware v. Word.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. CLARENCE WORD, Defendant. : : : Cr. A. No. IN 99-06-1635 : and 1636 : Cr. ID #9906014270 : : Upon Remand from the Supreme Court Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 19(c) and 26(d)(iii) Submitted: December 19, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001 ORDER This 9th day of January 2001, after conducting a hearing pursuant to the remand of the Supreme Court dated November 13, 2000, it appears to the Court that: 1. The defendant, Clarence Word, seeks to appeal his Superior Court convictions of possession with intent to deliver a narcotic schedule I controlled substance and maintaining a dwelling for keeping controlled substances. He has informed the Supreme Court that he desires to pursue his appeal pro se. State v. Clarence Word January 9, 2001 2. At the hearing December 19, 2000, the defendant was carefully interrogated regarding his desire to act as his own counsel. Each of the inquiries set forth in Watson v. State, Del. Supr., 564 A.2d 1107(1989) was conducted. He indicated that he has not retained private counsel to represent him. He is indigent; he has no assets; he has not met his continuing obligations for such things as child support since he was incarcerated 17 months ago. He has limited formal education; he has completed his GED. He has extensive experience with the criminal justice system, including the trial process. He believes that he has an adequate understanding of the trial process. 3. In electing to proceed pro se, the defendant said that he had not consulted with any other person, including an attorney, in making his decision, nor did he feel the need to do so. He acknowledged awareness that the appellate process involves the application of rules of procedure that may prove difficult for him to follow or understand. He expressed the view that he would be able to comply with all pertinent rules of the Court. He is aware that if he fails to understand or comply with the rules of the Supreme Court, it might have an adverse effect on his appeal. He further understands that he may not be permitted to argue his case orally to the Supreme Court. He understands that if his waiver 2 State v. Clarence Word January 9, 2001 of counsel is accepted, he cannot change his mind, or interrupt or delay the proceedings. 4. He has prepared his brief and feels confident that he has presented his case properly and has raised the issues of importance to him. Upon careful questioning, I am convinced that the defendant has knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily decided to proceed pro se, with full recognition of the associated risks. IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Judge Susan C. Del Pesco Original to Prothonotary xc: Supreme Court Mr. Clarence Word Joelle Wright, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General Kester I. H. Crosse, Esquire 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
