Case Title: Laney v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 237, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMONT LANEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 237, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0510005678 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 10, 2007 
Decided: 
October 29, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of October 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, 
Lamont Laney (Laney), of one count of unlawful sexual contact third 
degree.  The Superior Court sentenced Laney to one year at Level V 
incarceration, which Laney already had served awaiting trial.  This is 
Laney’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Laney's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Laney's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Laney's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Laney with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Laney also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Laney has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Laney'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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Laney’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Laney's counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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). 
 
3
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Laney 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