Case Title: Rodgers v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 371, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EMMANUEL RODGERS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 371, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0409003152 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 16, 2006 
  Decided: March 7, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of March 2006, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
In May 2005, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-
appellant, Emmanuel Rodgers (“Rodgers”), of three counts of second degree 
rape, which were reduced to three counts of fourth degree rape.  The 
Superior Court declared Rodgers to be an habitual offender and sentenced 
him to 45 years at Level V imprisonment followed by one year of probation.  
This is Rodgers’s direct appeal. 
 
2
(2) 
Rodgers' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Rodgers' counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Rodgers' attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Rodgers with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Rodgers also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Rodgers has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Rodgers' 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) 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). 
 
3
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Rodgers’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Rodgers' counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Rodgers 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice