Case Title: Porter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 162, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DALLAS PORTER, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 162, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1308017185 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2015 
Decided: 
September 17, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of September 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
On December 10, 2014, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
Dallas Porter, guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and Criminal Mischief and 
not guilty of Theft.  Porter was sentenced as follows: (i) for Burglary in the Second 
Degree as a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a), eight years of Level V 
incarceration; (ii) for Criminal Mischief, thirty days of Level V incarceration.  This 
is Porter’s direct appeal.   
 
2 
(2) 
On appeal, Porter’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  Counsel asserts that, 
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Counsel informed Porter of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Porter with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Porter of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Porter has not raised any issues for this 
Court to consider.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.       
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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.1 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
the Porter’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Porter’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Porter could not 
raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice