Case Title: Rosario v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 28, 2002

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FELIX ROSARIO, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 28, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0012009363 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 17, 2002 
  Decided: October 25, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of October 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Felix 
Rosario, of trafficking in cocaine, possession with intent to deliver, and four 
additional charges.  The Superior Court sentenced Rosario to a total period 
of three years incarceration followed by five years probation.  This is 
Rosario’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Rosario's trial counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Upon consideration of the brief and motion to 
 
 
-2- 
withdraw, this Court concluded that substitute counsel should be appointed 
to represent Rosario on appeal.  The Court directed substitute counsel to 
address an issue regarding the court interpreter used at Rosario’s trial, as 
well as any other issue raised by the record.  Rosario's substitute counsel 
wrote a letter to the Court, dated June 20, 2002, stating that the court 
interpreter used at Rosario’s trial was properly certified.  Counsel therefore 
concluded there was no arguable issue Rosario could raise on appeal 
concerning the court interpreter’s qualifications.   
(3)  Thereafter, Rosario’s counsel filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Rosario's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Rosario with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Rosario also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Rosario has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Rosario's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's 
judgment. 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
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.* 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Rosario’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Rosario's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Rosario 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/Joseph T. Walsh 
Justice 
                                                 
* 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).