Case Title: Peek v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 455, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES W. PEEK, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 455, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1102000362 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 9, 2012 
  Decided: April 23, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of April 2012, 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 July 2011, a Superior Court jury found the defendant-
appellant, James Peek, guilty of one count of insurance fraud.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Peek to two years at Level V incarceration to be suspended 
immediately for one year of probation.  Peek also was ordered to pay 
restitution to Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company in the amount of 
$9404.  This is Peek’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Peek’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Peek’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Peek’s attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Peek with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Peek also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Peek has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Peek’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 Peek’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Peek’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 Peek 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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice