The Delaware Supreme Court denied Reginald Fayton's appeal from his convictions for attempted first-degree murder and other crimes, allowing defense counsel to withdraw from the case after determining the appeal had no merit.
In an order issued January 9, 2026, the three-justice panel led by Chief Justice Seitz considered defense counsel's motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State's response, and Fayton's own arguments before affirming the Superior Court's judgment.
The case stems from a domestic violence incident that escalated over several months in 2023. Fayton and his wife, Vernell Fayton, had been married and living in New York before separating in early 2020. Ms. Fayton subsequently moved to an apartment in New Castle, Delaware, where Fayton would sometimes visit her.
The first documented incident occurred on February 12, 2023, when law enforcement responded to Ms. Fayton's residence after she reported that Fayton had physically assaulted her. The responding officer observed injuries to Ms. Fayton's face, leading to charges against Fayton for third-degree assault. The court ordered Fayton to have no contact with Ms. Fayton or her residence, but the parties continued to communicate despite the protective order.
The situation escalated dramatically several months later on July 2, 2023, when Ms. Fayton returned from a vacation in Florida with her stepson. According to court records, this incident led to the attempted first-degree murder charges against Fayton, though the specific details of what occurred on that date are not fully detailed in the available court documents.
Following his conviction in Delaware Superior Court, Fayton appealed directly to the Delaware Supreme Court. However, his appointed counsel conducted what the court described as a "conscientious review of the record and the law" and concluded that the appeal was without merit.
Under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26(c), defense counsel in criminal cases can petition to withdraw when they determine an appeal lacks substantive legal grounds. This rule serves as a safeguard to ensure that frivolous appeals do not clog the court system while still preserving defendants' rights to appellate review.
The withdrawal process requires strict procedural compliance. Counsel must inform the defendant of the provisions of Rule 26(c), provide copies of both the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief, and notify the defendant of their right to supplement counsel's presentation with their own arguments.
Fayton's counsel followed these procedures, and Fayton exercised his right to provide additional points for the court's consideration. The court reviewed these submissions along with the State's argument that the Superior Court's judgment should be affirmed.
The Delaware Supreme Court's order demonstrates the state's appellate process for handling cases where appointed counsel believes an appeal lacks merit. Rule 26(c) motions are relatively common in criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving serious violent crimes where the evidence against the defendant was substantial and the trial court followed proper procedures.
The timeline of the case shows the judicial system's methodical approach to serious criminal matters. The initial assault charge in February 2023 led to a no-contact order that was allegedly violated, culminating in the July 2023 incident that resulted in the attempted murder charges. The case proceeded through the Superior Court system before reaching the Delaware Supreme Court on appeal.
Domestic violence cases often present complex legal and factual issues, particularly when they involve escalating patterns of behavior over time. The progression from assault charges to attempted murder charges in this case illustrates how domestic violence situations can deteriorate rapidly despite court intervention through protective orders.
The Delaware Supreme Court's denial of the appeal means Fayton's convictions for attempted first-degree murder and other crimes remain in effect. The court's willingness to grant counsel's motion to withdraw indicates that the justices agreed there were no viable grounds for reversing the Superior Court's judgment.
This case also highlights the important role of Rule 26(c) in Delaware's criminal justice system. The rule allows for efficient resolution of meritless appeals while ensuring defendants retain the right to present their own arguments to the appellate court, even when counsel seeks to withdraw.
The involvement of three justices in the decision – Chief Justice Seitz along with Justices Valihura and Griffiths – reflects the Delaware Supreme Court's standard practice for criminal appeals. The court's careful consideration of all submissions, including Fayton's own points and the State's response, demonstrates the thoroughness of Delaware's appellate review process even in cases where counsel seeks to withdraw.
The case serves as an example of how Delaware courts handle domestic violence cases that escalate to serious felony charges, showing both the progression of charges and the appellate review process when defendants challenge their convictions.