Case Title: Walter v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 53, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT H. WALTER,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 53, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. No. IN96-01-1295
§
§
Submitted: May 31, 2001
  Decided:
June 14, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 14th day of June 2001, 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)
On February 6, 2001, the Superior Court found the defendant-
appellant, Robert H. Walter, guilty of a probation violation and sentenced
him to Level V incarceration for nine months, to be suspended for one year
at Level IV (CREST), to be suspended for Level III probation upon
successful completion of the CREST program.  This is Walter’s appeal from
that sentence.
-2-
(2)
Walter's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Walter's counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Walter's attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Walter with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Walter also was informed of his right
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Walter has not raised any issues
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken
by Walter's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision.
(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.*
                                                
*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-
(4)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Walter’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Walter's counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Walter 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/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice