Title: Jones v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARLON J. JONES 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 120, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 9801001203 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 13, 2005 
Decided: 
September 19, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of September 2005, 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 March 2005, the Superior Court adjudicated the defendant-
appellant, Marlon Jones, guilty of his third probation violation. Jones had 
admitted the violations charged by his probation officer.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Jones to a total period of three years at Level V incarceration to be 
followed by decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Jones’ appeal. 
(2) 
Jones’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Jones’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
 
-2- 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Jones’ attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Jones with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Jones also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Jones has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Jones’ 
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 Jones’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Jones’ 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 Jones 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice