Case Title: Porter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 128, 2011

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-10-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RUBEN PORTER, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  128, 2011 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1003012332 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2011 
 
Decided: 
October 20, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of October 2011, upon consideration of the appellant=s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney=s motion to 
withdraw, and the State=s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 13, 2010, the appellant, Ruben Porter, pled 
guilty to Assault in the First Degree, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During 
the Commission of a Felony, Assault in a Detention Facility, and Possession 
of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited.  On January 14, 2011, Porter 
was sentenced to a total of twenty-eight years at Level V suspended after 
twenty-five years for one year at Level III supervision and two years at 
Level I supervision.  This is Porter’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Porter’s appellate counsel (“Counsel”)1 has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).2  
Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the 
record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel also reports that 
Porter did not submit any points for the Court’s consideration.3  The State 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.4  The Court must also 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 
(4) 
In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Porter’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a 
                                            
1 Porter was represented by different counsel at trial.   
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
3 The record reflects that Counsel provided Porter, as required, with a copy of the motion, 
the brief and appendix, and a letter explaining that Porter had a right to submit written 
points for the Court’s consideration.  Id. 
4 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).  
5 Id. 
3 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Porter could not raise a meritorious claim on 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