Title: Llanos v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LOUIS LLANOS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 141, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN04-07-0802 
§  Cr. ID 0407003953 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 14, 2005 
  Decided: December 15, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 15th day of December 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) 
The 
defendant-appellant, 
Louis 
Llanos, 
was 
convicted 
following a Superior Court bench trial of second degree assault.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Llanos to eight years at Level V imprisonment to 
be suspended after serving two years for decreasing levels of supervision.  
At trial, Llanos did not deny beating the victim but claimed that he did so in 
defense of his family.  This is Llanos’ direct appeal. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Llanos’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Llanos’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Llanos’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Llanos with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Llanos also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Llanos has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Llanos’ 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 Llanos’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
                                                 
*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- 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Llanos’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Llanos 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