Case Title: Tercero v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 227, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PASCUAL TERCERO,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 227, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0803013003A 
§                      0803013003B 
§                      0804002368 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 22, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    November 3, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 3rd day of November 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Pascual Tercero, was found guilty by 
a Superior Court jury of Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Unlawful 
Sexual Contact in the First Degree.  Tercero also pleaded nolo contendere to 
Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree and Rape in the Fourth 
Degree.  He was sentenced to a total of 22 years incarceration at Level V, to 
 
2 
be suspended after 12 years for 10 years of probation.  This is Tercero’s 
direct appeal of his convictions. 
 
(2) 
Tercero’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Tercero’s counsel asserts that, based upon 
a careful and complete examination of the record and the law, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Tercero’s attorney informed him of 
the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Tercero also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Tercero has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Tercero’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.1    
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Tercero’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Tercero’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Tercero 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  
                                                 
1 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).