Case Title: Saunders v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 311, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LARRY SAUNDERS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 311, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1008019055 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2011 
Decided: 
December 21, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of December 2011, 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 -appellant, Larry Saunders, pled guilty on March 15, 2011 to one 
count of first degree robbery.  The Superior Court sentenced Saunders to a period 
of eight years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving five years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Saunders’ direct appeal. 
(2) Saunders’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Saunders’ counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and 
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
2 
 
letter, Saunders’ attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Saunders 
also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Saunders 
has raised several issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to 
Saunders’ issues, as well as to the position taken by Saunders’ 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 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) Saunders has enumerated two issues in response to his counsel’s motion 
to withdraw.   First, he contends that his charges should be dismissed because the 
State is not a legal person and cannot legally bring charges against him.  Second, 
he contends that he has newly discovered evidence that the Superior Court lacked 
jurisdiction to convict and sentence him because the American flag in the 
                                                 
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). 
 
3 
 
courtroom was fringed in gold, thus making the court a military tribunal, which 
had no jurisdiction over him as a civilian.  
(5) We find no merit to Saunders’ frivolous claims.  The Department of 
Justice and the Attorney General of the State of Delaware are vested with legal 
authority to pursue charges in criminal proceedings occurring within the 
boundaries of the State.2  Moreover, the Superior Court has personal and subject 
matter jurisdiction over all adults indicted on felony charges in the State of 
Delaware.3  There is no merit to Saunders’ contention that either the State or the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. 
(6) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Saunders’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Saunders’ counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Saunders 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 
                                                 
2 See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29 §§ 101, 2504(6) (2003). 
3 See  DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 7; DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 2701(c) (2007).