Opinion
No. 521, 1998.
June 29, 1999.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Kent County, CrA IK97-09-0076-0083.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
MICHAEL A. BENSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 521, 1998 Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 11, 1999. Decided: June 29, 1999.
Appeal From Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County in Cr. A. Nos. IK97-09-0076 thru 0083, Def. ID No. 9708021684.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 29th day of June 1999, upon consideration of the appellant's brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) ("Rule 26(c)"), his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In August 1998, following a two-day jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant-appellant, Michael A. Benson, was convicted of eight drug offenses, including two counts of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance, three counts of Delivery of a Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance, and one count each of Trafficking in Cocaine, Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Benson was sentenced to a total of 78 years at Level V imprisonment followed by one year at Level III probation and three years at Level II probation. This is Benson's direct appeal.
(2) Benson's trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Benson's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Benson's attorney states that he informed Benson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Benson with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Benson also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Benson has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Benson's counsel and has moved to affirm the conviction and sentence.
(3) 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).
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Benson's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Benson's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Benson 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 Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
Maurice A. Hartnett, III, Justice