Case Title: Junod v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 675, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RANDALL W. JUNOD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 675, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for County 
§  Cr. ID 0403026366 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 1, 2007 
Decided: 
July 19, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of July 2007, 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) 
In December 2006, the Superior Court found the defendant-
appellant, Randall Junod (Junod), in violation of the terms of his probation 
associated with a prior sentence for a fourth offense DUI.  The VOP finding, 
which was his second violation, was the result of Junod being charged with 
escape after conviction when he failed to report back to the Sussex Work 
Release Unit after leaving on an approved work pass.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Junod on the VOP to two years and three months at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended upon successful completion of the Key 
Program for one year at Level IV, to be suspended upon successful 
completion of residential drug treatment for one year at Level III probation.  
This is Junod’s appeal from that sentence. 
(2) 
Junod's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Junod's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Junod's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Junod with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Junod also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Junod has raised several issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Junod's 
counsel, as well as the issues raised by Junod, 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) 
Junod filed an eight-page handwritten document in response to 
his counsel’s request for points Junod wanted to raise on appeal.  While it is 
not entirely clear, it appears that Junod contends that his first violation of 
probation proceeding, which occurred in February 2006 and is not the 
subject of this appeal, was procedurally defective.  Junod also appears to 
offer an explanation for why he committed the violation of probation that is 
the subject of this appeal. Finally, he challenges the sentence imposed 
because he contends there was no evidence that he needed drug treatment, 
and he asserts the sentence was excessive. 
(5) 
The issues that Junod raises regarding his February 2006 VOP 
proceeding are not properly before the Court in this appeal.  Junod filed an 
appeal to this Court from the February VOP but later dismissed that appeal 
voluntarily.  He has waived any issues he may have had regarding that 
proceeding. 
(6) 
Although Junod offers an explanation about why he failed to 
report back to the Work Release Center on November 8, 2006 in accordance 
                                                 
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). 
 
with his work pass, Junod does not deny that he absconded from supervision 
and was not apprehended until November 15.  Nor does Junod deny that he 
pled guilty in the Court of Common Pleas to a charge of escape, which led to 
the violation of probation charge.  Under these circumstances, we find no 
abuse of discretion in the Superior Court’s finding that Junod had violated 
the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal charge.2 
(7) 
Moreover, once the violation was established, the Superior 
Court was entitled to revoke Junod’s previously-imposed probation and to 
reimpose the unexecuted portion of Junod’s Level V sentence.3  Junod 
provides no evidence that the Superior Court’s sentence did not properly 
credit Junod for all the time that he previously served at Level V on his 
original DUI sentence.  Furthermore, any departure from the SENTAC 
guidelines provides no basis for appeal.4 
(8) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Junod’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Junod's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Junod could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
2 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
3 11 Del. C. § 4334(c) (Supp. 2006). 
4 Siple v. State, 701 A.2d 79, 83 (Del. 1997). 
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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice