Opinion
Docket No. 314, 1998.
March 1, 1999.
Appeal from Superior Court, New Castle County, CrA IN98-03-0260-0264.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
TYREEK D. BROWN, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 314, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 8, 1999. Decided: March 1, 1999.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, Cr.A. Nos. IN98-03-0260 through -0264.
Before HOLLAND, HARTNETT, and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 1st day of March 1999, 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) In March 1998, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Tyreek D. Brown, guilty of two counts of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and two weapon offenses. After a penalty hearing, the jury recommended that Brown be sentenced to life imprisonment for each murder conviction. The Superior Court sentenced Brown to two life terms plus 23 years imprisonment. This is Brown's direct appeal.
(2) Brown's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Brown's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Brown's attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Brown with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Brown also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Brown has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Brown's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision.
(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) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (b) this 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 Brown's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Brown's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Brown 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:
/s/ Maurice A. Hartnett, III, Justice