Case Title: Roberts v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 229, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN J. ROBERTS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 229, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0511010359 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 25, 2006 
  Decided: October 2, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This second day of October 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Kevin J. Roberts (Roberts), was 
convicted, following a bench trial, of one count of second degree forgery 
and one count of theft.  The Superior Court sentenced Roberts to a total 
period of two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended immediately 
for concurrent periods of probation.  This is Roberts’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Roberts’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Roberts’ counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Roberts’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Roberts with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Roberts also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Roberts has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Roberts’ 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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Roberts’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Roberts’ counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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). 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Roberts 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice