Title: Price v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARRYL PRICE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 74, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1107003147 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 16, 2012 
  Decided: July 24, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of July 2012, 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, Darryl Price, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) 4th 
Offense and Careless Driving.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced 
Price to a period of five years at Level V imprisonment to be suspended after 
serving six months in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  This is 
Price’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Price’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Price’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Price’s attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Price with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Price also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Price has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Price’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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Price’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Price’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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 Price 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