Johnson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RONALD G. JOHNSON, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 525, 2015 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID 1406021868 Submitted: April 5, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016 Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER This 23rd day of May 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) In May 2015, following a three-day trial, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Ronald Johnson, of one count each of Assault in the Second Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony, Resisting Arrest, and Offensive Touching. On September 18, 2015, the Superior Court sentenced Johnson to a total period of eleven years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended after serving two years plus ninety days in prison for decreasing levels of supervision. This is Johnson’s direct appeal. (2) Johnson’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule 26(c). Johnson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Johnson’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Johnson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Johnson also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Johnson did not file any points for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Johnson’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. (3) This Court’s review of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (i) we must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) we must conduct our 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.1 (4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Johnson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Johnson’s counsel has made a conscientious 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 effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Johnson could not raise a meritorious claim in this 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 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.
