Opinion
No. 318, 2001
Decided: March 5, 2002
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County in S01-01-0775I and 0076I. Def. ID No. 0012015854.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
IVAN L. MENDEZ, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 318, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 8, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
MYRON T. STEELE, Justice:
ORDER
This 5th day of February 2002, 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) On April 9, 2001, Ivan L. Mendez entered a Robinson plea in the Superior Court to the offenses of Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony. After a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Mendez to a total of 25 years at Level V, suspended after 15 years, for ten years at Level III probation.
Robinson v. State, 291 A.2d 279 (Del. 1972) (permitting Superior Court to accept guilty plea where guilt of offense is not admitted).
(2) In this appeal, Mendez' counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Mendez' counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Mendez' counsel informed Mendez of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Mendez with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the Rule 26(c) brief, and the complete trial court transcript. Counsel also informed Mendez of his right to supplement counsel's presentation. Mendez did not submit any issues to his counsel for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Mendez' counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(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) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Mendez' appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.
We are satisfied that Mendez' counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Mendez 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.