Case Title: Cooper v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY COOPER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 604, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN03-02-0136 and -0138 
§  Cr. ID 0301018775 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 22, 2004 
  Decided: April 30, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of April 2004, 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, Anthony Cooper, pled guilty in 
September 2003 to first degree assault and possession of a deadly weapon 
during the commission of a felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Cooper to 
a total period of fourteen years imprisonment, to be suspended after eight 
years for two years of probation.  This is Cooper’s direct appeal.
(2) 
Cooper's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Cooper's counsel asserts that, based upon 
 
 
-2- 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Cooper's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Cooper with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Cooper also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Cooper has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Cooper'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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Cooper’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Cooper's 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). 
 
 
-3- 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Cooper 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice