Case Title: Schetrom v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 512, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN SCHETROM, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 512, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 93007930DI 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 6, 2006 
Decided: 
March 8, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of March 2006, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Steven Schetrom (“Schetrom”), was 
found in violation of two probationary sentences.  Specifically, the Superior 
Court found that Schetrom, a Tier III sex offender, had violated the 
conditions of his probation by changing addresses without prior approval, by 
having contact with minors, and by having accessed an internet chat room 
with the password “kiddy.”  The Superior Court sentenced Schetrom to a 
total period of two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after 
 
2
serving six months for probation.  This is Schetrom’s appeal from that 
sentence. 
(2) 
Schetrom's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Schetrom's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Schetrom's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Schetrom with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Schetrom also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Schetrom has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Schetrom'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 Schetrom’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Schetrom's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Schetrom 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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).