Case Title: Benson v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 46, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYRONE R. BENSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 46, 2003 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos.  IN01-08-1568, -1569, 
§  -1571, -1572, and IN01-08-3095 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 26, 2003 
  Decided: July 18, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of July 2003, 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, Tyrone R. Benson, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of possession of a firearm during the commission of a 
felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited, aggravated 
menacing, and two counts of offensive touching.  The victim, who testified 
against Benson at trial, was his ex-girlfriend. The Superior Court sentenced 
Benson to a total period of seven years incarceration, to be suspended after 
five years minimum mandatory.  This is Benson’s direct appeal. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Benson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Benson's counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Benson's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Benson with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Benson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Benson has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Benson'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 Benson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Benson's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Benson 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/ Randy J. Holland  
Justice