Case Title: McElderry v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 619, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMAR MCELDERRY, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 619, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1804003383 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 3, 2019 
Decided: 
June 17, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On October 8, 2018, the appellant, Lamar McElderry, pleaded guilty to 
one count of aggravated possession of cocaine.  The Superior Court deferred 
sentencing.  On November 30, 2018, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion 
to declare McElderry a habitual offender and sentenced McElderry to five years of 
Level V incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This is McElderry’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
McElderry’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful 
2 
 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  McElderry’s 
attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided McElderry with 
a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel informed 
McElderry of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  McElderry did not 
file a written response raising any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State 
has responded to the position taken by McElderry’s 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.1 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
McElderry’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that McElderry’s counsel has made a conscientious 
                                               
 
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 
 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that McElderry 
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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice