Case Title: Shaw v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 417, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TRAVIS SHAW, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 417, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2103001697 (N) 
§  
§ 
 
Submitted: May 4, 2023 
Decided: 
May 25, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 31, 2022, the appellant, Travis Shaw, pleaded guilty to 
resisting arrest.  In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed a charge of 
possession of ammunition by a person prohibited and other charges.   The State also 
agreed to recommend a sentence of one year of imprisonment, suspended for Level 
III probation.  At sentencing, Shaw’s counsel requested a lower level of probation; 
the Superior Court imposed the recommended sentence, with credit for ten days 
previously served. This is Shaw’s direct appeal.   
 
2
(2) 
On appeal, Shaw’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Shaw’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.  
In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Shaw of 
the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 
and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Shaw of his right to submit 
points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal.  Shaw has not submitted any 
points for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief 
and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”2 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82. 
 
3
the law and properly determined that Shaw could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot.  
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Chief Justice