Case Title: Page v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 116, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HOWARD PAGE, JR.,  
 
§ 
§ 
No.  116, 2010 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County 
§ 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0905012699  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: June 18, 2010 
Decided: 
August 13, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 13th day of August 2010, 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, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
On November 4, 2009, the appellant, Howard Page, Jr., pled 
nolo contendere to Resisting Arrest with Force or Violence.  Page was 
sentenced to two years at Level V, suspended after six months for one year 
at Level III probation. 
(2) 
On January 29, 2010, Page filed a motion for correction of 
illegal sentence pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a).  By order 
 
2
dated February 9, 2010, the Superior Court denied the motion on the basis 
that Page’s sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.  This appeal 
followed. 
(3) 
On appeal, Page’s defense counsel (ACounsel@) has filed a brief 
and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, 
based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  Counsel states that he provided Page with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and appendix.  
Counsel also asked Page to submit any issues that Page sought to raise on 
appeal.  Page has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The 
State has responded to the position taken by Counsel and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court=s judgment. 
(4) 
The standard and scope of review of a motion to withdraw and 
an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is two-fold.  First, the Court must 
be satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record 
and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal.1  Second, the 
Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the 
                                            
1 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
appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be 
decided without an adversary presentation.2 
(5) 
In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Page’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Page 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: 
Randy J. Holland  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                            
2 Id.