Opinion
No. 183, 2003.
Submitted: August 26, 2003.
Decided: October 1, 2003.
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. 0211013160.
AFFIRMED
Unpublished Opinion is below
ANDREWS v. STATE, 183 (Del. 10-1-2003) CHARLES ANDREWS, fn1 Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 183, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: August 26, 2003. Decided: October 1, 2003.
fn1 The Court sua sponte has assigned a pseudonym to the appellant pursuant to SUPR.CT.R. 7(d).
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. 0211013160.
Before BERGER, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
Myron T. Steele, Justice
This 1st day of October 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Charles Andrews, was found by the Family Court to have committed Attempted Robbery in the Second Degree, Offensive Touching, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and was adjudged delinquent.
He was committed to Level V secure care for an indefinite period, to be suspended for 24 months of Level III supervision. This is Andrews' direct appeal from the delinquency proceeding.
(2) Andrews' counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). 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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) the 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.
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).
(3) Andrews' counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Andrews' counsel informed Andrews of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript. Andrews was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Andrews provided no points for this Court to consider.
The State has responded to the position taken by Andrews' counsel and has moved to affirm the Family Court's judgment.
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Andrews' appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Andrews' counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Andrews 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 Family Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.