Opinion
160 2024
10-16-2024
AARON LIMBERRY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.
Submitted: September 16, 2024
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 2104000149 (N)
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.
ORDER
Gary F. Traynor, Justice.
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the appellant's counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State's response, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In January 2024, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Aaron Limberry, guilty of first-degree assault and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. The Superior Court sentenced Limberry to fifty years of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for decreasing levels of supervision. This is Limberry's direct appeal.
(2) On appeal, Limberry's counsel ("Counsel") filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel informed Limberry of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
(3) Counsel also informed Limberry of his right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Limberry has not provided points for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(4) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 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); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).
(5) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Limberry's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Limberry could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.