Case Title: Dunn v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 258, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TONY DUNN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 258, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN02-11-1436  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 3, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   October 29, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of October 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief 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, Tony Dunn, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Resisting Arrest.  He was sentenced to one year Level 
V incarceration, to be suspended for decreasing levels of probation.  This is 
Dunn’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
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 
 
2
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 
 
(3) 
Dunn’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Dunn’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Dunn’s counsel informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Dunn with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Dunn also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney’s presentation.  Dunn has not raised any issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Dunn’s 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s decision. 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Dunn’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Dunn’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Dunn could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                          
 
1Penson 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
 
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