Case Title: Jones v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 320, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRIAN JONES,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 320, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1006012725A 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 27, 2011 
Decided: November 10, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of November 2011, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Brian Jones, entered a plea of guilty to 
two counts of Rape in the Second Degree.  He was sentenced to a total of 50 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 40 years for decreasing 
levels of supervision.  This is Jones’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Jones’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Jones’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Jones’s attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Jones with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the transcripts of the plea and sentencing.  Jones 
also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  
Jones has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Jones’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 in order 
to 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) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Jones’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Jones’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
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
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Jones 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