Case Title: Gibbs v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 357, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE W. GIBBS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 357, 2002 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below -- Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County in Cr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
ID 0203014294. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 26, 2002 
Decided: 
November 19, 2002  
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of November 2002, 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 June 2002, Tyrone Gibbs pleaded guilty to Delivery of 
Cocaine, Resisting Arrest and Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree.  For 
the Delivery of Cocaine offense, the Superior Court sentenced Gibbs to the 
Boot Camp Diversion Program for a period of six months followed, upon 
successful completion of the Boot Camp Program, by two years and six 
months at Level III with Boot Camp Aftercare.  For Resisting Arrest, the 
Superior Court sentenced Gibbs to one year at Level V, suspended and 
discharged.  For Criminal Trespass, the Superior Court imposed a $50 fine.  
This is Gibbs’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Gibbs’ counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Gibbs’ counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Gibbs’ attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Gibbs with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Gibbs also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney’s presentation.  Gibbs has raised two issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to Gibbs’ points, as well as to the 
position taken by Gibbs’ 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.  First, this Court must be satisfied that defense 
counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and law for 
arguable claims.1  Second, this Court must conduct its own review of the 
record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least 
                                          
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 428, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.2 
(4) 
First, Gibbs alleges that he received ineffective assistance of 
counsel.  Second, Gibbs complains that his probationary sentence is too 
severe.  He requests that his probation be terminated after he completes Boot 
Camp and Aftercare. 
(5) 
It is settled law that this Court will not consider a claim of 
ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on direct appeal.3  
Accordingly, we will not review Gibbs’ ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim in this appeal.   
(6) 
Gibbs’ complaint about his sentence is unavailing.  Gibbs’ 
dissatisfaction with his sentence notwithstanding, the two and one-half years 
probationary sentence imposed by the Superior Court was required 
                                          
 
2 Id. 
3 Duross v. State, 494 A.2d 1265, 1267-68 (Del. 1985). 
by title 11, section 6712(d)(1) of the Delaware Code.4 
(7) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Gibbs’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Gibbs’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Gibbs 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
4 See Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6712(d)(1) (2001) (providing that Boot Camp Diversion 
Program shall include placement in a boot camp facility with a substance abuse treatment 
program for a period of not less than 6 months, followed by supervision at Level IV or 
III, or both, for a period of not less than 2 and one-half years).