Case Title: Nelson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 64, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEITH B. NELSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 64, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  Cr.A. Nos. VS98-12-0123-01
§                   VS98-12-0124-01
§                   VS98-12-0654-01
§                   VS98-12-0656-01
Submitted: April 19, 2002
  Decided:   May 20, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 20th day of May 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
brief filed 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)
In February 1999, the defendant-appellant, Keith B. Nelson,
pleaded guilty to four felony charges.  His Level V sentences were
suspended for probation.  In June 1999, Nelson was found to have
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) and his Level V sentences
were reimposed, to be suspended following successful completion of the
2
Key Program, with the remainder of his Level V time to be served at Level
IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Level III
Aftercare.  Nelson was admitted to the Key Program, but was dismissed
before completing it.
(2)
On direct appeal, Nelson argued that: a) the Superior Court
improperly denied his motion for sentence modification based upon
inaccurate information concerning his dismissal from the Key Program;
and b) his motion for sentence modification should have been granted
because he was psychologically unable to participate in the Key Program.1
Because Nelson’s direct appeal could not be decided on the basis of the
record before us, we remanded the matter to the Superior Court for further
fact finding regarding Nelson’s dismissal from the Key Program and his
mental health status.
(4)
The Superior Court’s report following remand was filed in this
Court on December 7, 2001.  The Superior Court concluded that Nelson
was capable of participating in the Key Program, but would not be able to
complete it because there was insufficient time left on his sentence.  The
Superior Court requested, and this Court permitted, a TASC evaluation so
                                                          
1Nelson’s counsel filed a Rule 26(c) brief, attaching these points from Nelson for this
Court’s consideration.
3
that Nelson’s substance abuse problem could be addressed in the Superior
Court’s modified sentencing order.
(5)
On January 28, 2002, following receipt of TASC’s January
16, 2002 report, the Superior Court held another hearing and re-sentenced
Nelson.  The January 28, 2002 sentencing order provides that the time
remaining on Nelson’s Level V sentences will be suspended for 1 year of
Level III probation, with TASC to monitor the probation and provide
outpatient treatment as recommended in its report.
(6)
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s January 28, 2002
sentencing order, Nelson’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) the Court must be
satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the
record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and
(b) the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine
whether the appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it
can be decided without an adversary presentation.2
                                                          
2Penson 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).
4
(7)
Nelson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable
issues.  By letter, Nelson’s counsel informed Nelson of the provisions of
Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and
the accompanying brief.  Nelson was also informed of his right to
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Nelson did not submit any points
for this Court to consider.  The State has responded to the position taken
by Nelson’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment.
(8)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has
concluded that Nelson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Nelson’s counsel has
made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has
properly determined that Nelson 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:
5
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice