Case Title: McCoy v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 203, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
WALTER C. MCCOY,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 203, 2001
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. VN94-10-0103-03,
§  VN94-10-0107-03,
§  VN98-05-0776-01
§
Submitted: November 8, 2001
  Decided:
December 10, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
filed under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the appellant’s counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The defendant-appellant, Walter McCoy, appeals from the Superior
Court’s adjudication and sentencing of him for violation of probation (VOP).
McCoy's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to
Rule 26(c).  McCoy's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
McCoy's attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided
McCoy with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
2
McCoy also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.
McCoy has raised one issue for this Court's consideration. He contends that the
Superior Court abused its discretion by refusing to follow the recommendation of
McCoy’s probation officer at sentencing.  The State has responded to the position
taken by McCoy's counsel as well as the point raised by McCoy and has moved to
affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
(2)
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
(3)
The record of the VOP hearing reflects that McCoy admitted to
violating the conditions of his probation.  The record also reflects that McCoy had
violated his probation on several previous occasions.  After considering McCoy’s
history of probation violations, the Superior Court determined that McCoy’s
probationary sentences should be revoked and that McCoy should serve six months
at Level V incarceration on each of his three underlying charges, notwithstanding
                                                
1Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S.
3
the recommendation of McCoy’s probation officer that McCoy be sentenced to
Level III probation.  McCoy contends it was error for the Superior Court not to
follow the probation officer’s recommendation. The State contends that the
sentence was well within the Superior Court’s discretion.
(4)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
McCoy’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable
issue.  Given McCoy’s history of violating probation, it was well within the
Superior Court’s discretion to revoke his probation and impose a prison sentence,
notwithstanding the probation officer’s recommendation to the contrary.2  We are
satisfied that McCoy’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the
record and the law and has properly determined that McCoy 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
                                                                                                                                                            
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2 See Jones v. State, Del. Supr., No. 223, 2001, Walsh, J. (Oct. 31, 2001) (ORDER).