IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BERNARD H. WILLIAMS, JR., § § No. 457, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2302009366 (K) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. § Submitted: July 17, 2024 Decided: August 9, 2024 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court concludes that: (1) In May 2023, a grand jury charged the appellant, Bernard H. Williams, Jr., with multiple weapon and motor vehicle offenses. On November 16, 2023, Williams pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed deadly weapon (firearm) (“CCDW”) and fourth-offense driving under the influence (“DUI”). Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle prosequi on the remaining charges. The parties also agreed to recommend the following sentence: (i) for CCDW, eight years of Level V incarceration, suspended after eighteen months for decreasing levels of supervision; and (ii) for DUI, five years of Level V incarceration, suspended after the six-month minimum under 21 Del. C. § 4177(d)(4) and (d)(9) for one year of Level III GPS. The Superior Court accepted Williams’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended sentence. This appeal followed.

(2) On appeal, Williams’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Williams of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Williams with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.

(3) Counsel also informed Williams of his right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Williams has not submitted any points for this Court’s consideration.

(4) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 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.1 (5) Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Williams’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Williams 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice