Case Title: Fields v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 673, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN FIELDS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 673, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0410008516 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 17, 2007 
  Decided: May 23, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of May 2007, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Kevin Fields (Fields), pled guilty in 
November 2004 to one count of possession of heroin with intent to deliver 
and criminal impersonation.  The Superior Court sentenced Fields to ten 
years at Level V incarceration to be suspended immediately for a total of 
thirty months probation.  In June 2006, Fields was charged with violating the 
terms of his probation.  The Superior Court held a VOP hearing in 
November 2006.  Fields admitted violating the conditions of his probation.  
 
2
The Superior Court sentenced him to five years at Level V incarceration to 
be suspended after serving two years for three years of decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This is Fields’ appeal from his VOP sentence. 
(2) 
Fields’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Fields’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Fields’ attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Fields with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Fields also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Fields has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Fields’ 
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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Fields’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Fields’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Fields 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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).