Opinion
Docket No. 10, 1999.
June 14, 1999.
Appeal from Superior Court, New Castle County, CrA IN97-09-0290-0294.
AFFIRMED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
HAKIM K. WARREN, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. No. 10, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 2, 1999. Decided: June 14, 1999.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County in Cr. A. Nos. IN97-09-0290 thru 0294, Def. ID No. 9708011823.
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and HARTNETT, Justices.
ORDER
This 14th day of June 1999, 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 August 1998, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Hakim K. Warren, of two counts of first degree reckless endangering, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and one count of criminal mischief. On December 11, 1998, Warren was sentenced to a total of 14 years' imprisonment, suspended after eight years' imprisonment for six years' probation. This is Warren's direct appeal.
(2) Warren's trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Warren's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Warren's attorney states that he informed Warren of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Warren with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Warren also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Warren has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Warren's 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 Warren's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Warren's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that
Warren 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.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice