Case Title: Carter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 151, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEROME ANTHONY CARTER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 151, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID. 0403014614 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 23, 2005 
  Decided: October 4, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of October 2005, 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, Jerome Carter, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a 
person prohibited and one count of false reporting.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Carter to a total period of four years at Level V incarceration to be 
suspended after serving six months for decreasing levels of supervision.  
This is Carter’s direct appeal. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Carter's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Carter's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Carter's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Carter with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Carter also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Carter has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Carter's 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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Carter’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
                                                 
*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- 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Carter's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Carter 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