Case Title: Ross v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 589, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES E. ROSS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 589, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0303007243 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 17, 2006 
  Decided: July 6, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This sixth day of July 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, James Ross (“Ross”), filed this appeal 
from a violation of probation sentencing order dated November 1, 2005.  
The VOP charge, which was filed in Kent County, was based on new 
criminal charges of assault in a detention facility. The Superior Court in 
Kent County deferred action on the VOP charge pending disposition of the 
new criminal charges. The new charges were tried in New Castle County, 
and Ross was acquitted.  Nonetheless, the Superior Court judge in New 
 
2
Castle County who had presided at Ross’ trial found that Ross had violated 
the terms of his probation by failing to follow correctional officers’ orders 
and sentenced him on the VOP charge to four years at Level V incarceration 
to be suspended immediately for one year at Level IV Home Confinement.1 
The Department of Correction continued to hold Ross at Level V apparently 
based on the administrative warrant that had issued from Kent County.  On 
December 23, 2005, after Ross had filed this appeal from the VOP 
sentencing order, the Superior Court in Kent County dismissed the violation 
filed there based on the November 1, 2005 action of the Superior Court in 
New Castle County. 
(2) 
Ross' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Ross' counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Ross' attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Ross with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Ross also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Ross has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  His counsel, however, asserts that the appeal was filed 
                                                 
1 The transcript of the VOP sentencing reflects that the Superior Court ordered Ross be 
held at Level V pending space availability at Level IV.  The written sentencing order, 
however, reflects that Ross should be held at Level III pending space availability. 
 
3
because the Department of Correction failed to release Ross immediately 
from Level V incarceration, as set forth in the Superior Court’s written 
sentencing order of November 1, 2005, until December 23, 2005.  The State 
has responded to the position taken by Ross'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 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.2 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Ross’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  To the extent counsel complains that Ross was held at 
Level V longer than he should have been under the Superior Court’s 
November 1, 2005 order, we note that Ross filed a petition for habeas 
corpus, which the Superior Court dismissed.  Ross did not appeal from that 
decision.  Any alleged error by the Department of Correction in 
                                                 
2 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). 
 
4
implementing the Superior Court’s order is not a matter that is subject to 
review by this Court on appeal from the Superior Court’s sentencing order.   
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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice