Case Title: Morris v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 371, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JERMAINE MORRIS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 371, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK02-01-0100, 
§  IK01-10-0473, -0475 and -0477 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0109015969 and  
§  0109012669 
 
Submitted: November 14, 2002 
  Decided: December 26, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of December 2002, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Jermaine Morris, pleaded guilty on June 11, 
2002 to two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, 
one count of second degree assault, and one count of felony theft.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Morris to a total period of thirteen years incarceration, to be 
suspended after serving seven years for decreasing levels of supervision.  Morris 
filed a pro se notice of appeal.  His counsel was directed to file a formal notice of 
appeal on his behalf. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Morris’ counsel on appeal now has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Morris’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Morris’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Morris with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Morris also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Morris has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Morris’ counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision. 
(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 Morris’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Morris’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Morris 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/ Myron T. Steele_____________ 
Justice