Opinion
No. 376, 2002
Submitted: December 24, 2002
Decided: January 15, 2003
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. Nos. IN96-03-0972 and -0973, Cr. ID 9602001597
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
AGNES JENKINS, Defendant Below-Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below-Appellee. No. 376, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: December 24, 2002 Decided: January 15, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER
E. Norman Veasey, Chief Justice
This 15th day of January 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, her attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Agnes Jenkins, was convicted by a Superior Court judge of trafficking in cocaine and possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The Superior Court sentenced Jenkins to a total period of seven years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving three years for four years of probation. This is Jenkins' direct appeal.
(2) Jenkins' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Jenkins' counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Jenkins' attorney informed her of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Jenkins with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Jenkins also was informed of her right to supplement her attorney's presentation. Jenkins has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Jenkins' 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 Jenkins' appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Jenkins' counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Jenkins 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.