Title: Trammell v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GEORGE TRAMMELL,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 45, 2002 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for Sussex County, in  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0104012547. 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 16, 2002 
Decided: 
September 19, 2002  
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of September 2002, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorneys’ 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
In August 2001, the appellant, George Trammell, pleaded guilty 
to Forgery in the Second Degree and Driving While License Suspended or 
Revoked.  Trammell was sentenced to a total of two years and thirty days at 
Level V, suspended for one year at Level III, followed by one year and thirty 
days at Level II.  On January 23, 2002, the Superior Court found Trammell 
guilty of violation of probation and sentenced him to two years and thirty 
 
2
days at Level V, suspended after completion of the Level III Cornerstone 
Program, for Level III supervision.1  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
Trammell’s counsel on appeal have filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Trammell’s counsel assert 
that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are 
no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel state that they attempted, without 
success, to have hand-delivered to Trammell a copy of the motion to 
withdraw, a copy of the Rule 26(c) brief and appendix in draft form, and a 
letter explaining that Trammell could reply in writing to counsel within 
thirty days concerning any points Trammell wished to raise on appeal.  
According to counsel, however, Trammell refused to accept delivery of the 
documents, and he did not tender any issues to his counsel for this Court’s 
review.2  The State has responded to the position taken by Trammell’s 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s decision. 
(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.  First, the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
                                          
 
1 It appears that as of September 12, 2002, Trammell had not been placed in the 
Cornerstone Program.  By letter order dated September 12, 2002, the Superior Court 
requested that the Treatment Access Center evaluate Trammell as soon as possible and 
provide a written recommendation for a treatment program within thirty days.  
2 On August 12, 2002, Trammell submitted a document that appears to request a 
voluntary dismissal of this appeal.  By letter dated August 16, 2002, the Clerk forwarded 
Trammell’s document to his counsel.    
 
3
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.  Second, 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.3 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully, including the 
January 23, 2002 violation of probation hearing transcript that was filed with 
this Court on July 16, 2002, and has concluded that Trammell’s appeal is 
wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We are 
satisfied that Trammell’s counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the 
record and the law and properly determined that Trammell 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 
                                          
 
3 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).