Opinion
No. 83, 2003.
Submitted: July 23, 2003.
Decided: August 4, 2003.
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. VN97-11-0238-03 Cr. ID 9710016845
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
RONALD E. BROWN, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 83, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: July 23, 2003. Decided: August 4, 2003.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
Carolyn Berger, Justice
This 4th day of August 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In January 2003, the Superior Court found the defendant-appellant, Ronald Brown, in violation of the terms of his probation for the third time. The Superior Court revoked Brown's probation and sentenced him to serve three and a half years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after one year for decreasing levels of supervision. A probation officer testified at the hearing that he witnessed Brown driving in a reckless manner while Brown's license was suspended. The officers involved gave chase, but were forced to abandon the chase for safety reasons. Brown testified the police had mistakenly identified him as the perpetrator. The Superior Court credited the officer's testimony. 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 the law 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.