Title: Klaft v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GARY R. KLAFT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 116, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1302019245 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 22, 2015 
  Decided: August 25, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of August 2015, 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, Gary Klaft, pled guilty on August 7, 
2013 to one count each of Rape in the Fourth Degree and Sex Offender 
Unlawful Sexual Conduct Against a Child.  The Superior Court declared 
Klaft to be a habitual offender and sentenced him to a total period of forty 
years at Level V imprisonment to be suspended after serving twenty years in 
prison for twenty years at Level III probation.  Klaft did not file a direct 
appeal.  Instead, in December 2013, Klaft filed a motion for postconviction 
2 
 
relief, which the Superior Court denied on February 27, 2015.  This is 
Klaft’s appeal from that ruling. 
(2) 
Klaft’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Klaft’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Klaft’s attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Klaft with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Klaft also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Klaft has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Klaft’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.* 
                                                 
*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 Klaft’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Klaft’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Klaft 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice