Title: Rhodes v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAROD RHODES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 149, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 0803035910  
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 9, 2016 
  Decided: September 19, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of September 2016, 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) 
In September 2008, the defendant-appellant, Jarod Rhodes, pled 
guilty to two counts of Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled 
Substances and one count each of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with 
Intent to Deliver, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  Since his guilty 
plea and sentencing, Rhodes has filed several unsuccessful motions for 
modification of sentence and one unsuccessful motion for postconviction 
relief.  On April 19, 2016, the Superior Court denied Rhodes’ latest motion, 
2 
 
which sought to modify his consecutive sentences so that they would run 
concurrently.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
Rhodes’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Rhodes’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Rhodes’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Rhodes with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Rhodes also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Rhodes has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Rhodes’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 
3 
 
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 Rhodes’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  The argument raised in Rhodes’s motion for modification 
of sentence is foreclosed by this Court’s recent decision in Fountain v. 
State.2  We also are satisfied that Rhodes’s counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that 
Rhodes 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 
                                                 
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). 
2 Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 2016).