Case Title: Valentine v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 67, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANTHONY VALENTINE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 67, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0604010492 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  July 17, 2009 
Decided:  August 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of August 2009, 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, 
Anthony Valentine (Valentine), of two counts of first degree robbery, two 
counts of possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, 
possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, second degree 
assault, and second degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced 
Valentine to a total period of twenty-five years at Level V imprisonment, to 
 
2 
be suspended after serving twelve years for decreasing levels of supervision.  
This is Valentine’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Valentine's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Valentine's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Valentine's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Valentine with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Valentine also was informed of 
his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Valentine has not raised 
any issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Valentine'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 
 
3 
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 Valentine’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Valentine's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Valentine 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
*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).