Case Title: Foreman v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 83, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JUSTIN FOREMAN,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 83, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0802018812 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 13, 2009 
Decided:  September 9, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief 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, Justin Foreman, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Rape in the Second Degree, Rape in the Fourth 
Degree, and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree.  He was 
sentenced to a total of 21 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended 
after 10 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Foreman’s direct 
appeal. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Foreman’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Foreman’s counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record and the law, there are 
no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Foreman’s attorney informed him 
of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Foreman with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Foreman also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Foreman 
has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Foreman’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.1 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Foreman’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
                                                 
1 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 Foreman’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Foreman 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice