Case Title: Cuff v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 658, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN CUFF, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 658, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0601000601 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 7, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 24, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of July 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, Kevin Cuff, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of Attempted Murder in the First Degree, Possession of 
a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Deadly 
Weapon By a Person Prohibited, and Burglary in the First Degree.  He was 
sentenced to a total of 32 years at Level V, to be suspended after 30 years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Cuff’s direct appeal. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Cuff’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Cuff’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete 
and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Cuff’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided Cuff with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Cuff also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Cuff has not raised any issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Cuff’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 Cuff’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Cuff’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
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
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Cuff 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice