Opinion
No. 224, 1998.
Decided: December 2, 1998.
Superior (Sussex) CrA IS97-10-0592, 0594, 0595, 0596 and IS97-11-0294.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
ORLANDO I. HARMON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 224, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 20, 1998. Decided: December 2, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 2nd day of December 1998, 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 March 1998, following a two-day jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant-appellant, Orlando I. Harmon ("Harmon"), was convicted of Robbery First Degree, Possession of a Firearm Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Destructive Weapon, Conspiracy Second Degree, and Wearing a Disguise During the Commission of a Felony. Harmon was sentenced to a total of five years at Level V incarceration followed by one year at Level IV supervision, one year at Level III supervision, eight years at Level II supervision and three years at Level I. This is Harmon's direct appeal.
(2) Harmon's trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Harmon's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Harmon's attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Harmon with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief, and the complete trial transcript. Harmon also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Harmon has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Harmon 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 Harmon's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Harmon's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that
Harmon 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.