Case Title: White v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 303, 2007

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS A. WHITE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 303, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0312010250 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 21, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 15, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of October 2007, 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 thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Thomas A. White, pleaded guilty to 
Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine.  Additional charges of 
Maintaining a Dwelling for Keeping Controlled Substances and Possession 
of Drug Paraphernalia were dismissed.  White was sentenced as a habitual 
 
2
offender to life in prison.1 This is White’s direct appeal from his conviction 
and sentence.   
 
(2) 
White’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  White’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, White’s attorney informed White of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  White also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  White has not raised any issues 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by White’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.2 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(b). 
2 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 White’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that White’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that White 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