Case Title: Morton v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 330, 2021

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SIDNEY MORTON,1 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 330, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  File No. 2105013324 
§   
 
Submitted: May 4, 2022 
Decided: 
July 12, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the State’s response, and the Family Court 
record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 20, 2021, Nancy Harrington’s home—located at 1314 West 
3rd Street, Wilmington, Delaware—was burglarized.  Following an investigation, 
the police identified the fourteen-year-old appellant, Sidney Morton, as a suspect.  
Morton was arrested and charged with first-degree burglary, second-degree 
conspiracy, and theft under $1,500.  Several witnesses for the State testified at trial, 
 
1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the juvenile appellant under Supreme Court Rule 
7(d). 
 
 
2 
 
including: (i) Harrington, who testified that she was at work when she observed (on 
a motion-activated and interactive camera that she maintained in her house to 
communicate with her children) several young men—one of whom she recognized 
as Morton—ransacking her home around 11:00 pm on May 20, 2021; and (ii) a 
probation officer with the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (“YRS”), 
who testified that at the time of the burglary, Morton was wearing a  GPS-monitoring 
ankle bracelet and GPS plot points placed him in the area of the crime scene.  After 
the close of evidence, the Family Court adjudicated Morton delinquent as charged.  
On October 11, 2021, the Family Court sentenced Morton to an indefinite secure 
commitment with YRS, suspended for a Level IV staff-secure commitment at a 
placement at YRS’s discretion for a period of six months or completion of the 
program, followed by aftercare.  This is Morton’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Morton’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of 
the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Morton’s attorney informed 
Morton and his parents of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided them with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw and a draft of the accompanying brief.  Counsel also 
informed Morton and his parents of Morton’s right to supplement his attorney’s 
presentation.  Neither Morton nor his parents raised any issues for the Court’s 
 
 
3 
 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Morton’s counsel 
and has moved to affirm the Family 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.  First, 
the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel made a conscientious examination 
of the record and the law for claims that could arguably be raised on appeal. 2  
Second, 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.3 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Morton’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issues.  We also are satisfied that Morton’s counsel made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and the law and properly determined that Morton could not raise 
a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
 
 
 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442 
(1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
3 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82. 
 
 
4 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice