Title: Lewis v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JIMMIE LEWIS,   
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 203, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0305016966 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2010 
    
Decided:    October 13, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 13th day of October 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Jimmie Lewis, was found to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) in connection with his 2003 
sentences for Felony Theft and Resisting Arrest.1  Lewis was sentenced on 
the VOP to a total of 90 days at Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 
                                                 
1 This Court affirmed Lewis’s convictions on direct appeal.  Lewis v. State, Del. Supr., 
No. 64, 2005, Berger, J. (Sept. 29, 2005). 
 
2 
90 days at Level IV VOP Center.  This is Lewis’s direct appeal from his 
VOP sentences.   
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Lewis appeared at a VOP 
hearing before the Superior Court on April 6, 2010.  He admitted to failing 
to report to his probation officer and to absconding while on probation.  The 
record also reflects that Lewis had an additional 2 years at Level V 
remaining on his original sentences.   
 
(3) 
Lewis’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims 
that could arguably support the appeal; and b) the Court must conduct its 
own review of the record to determine whether the appeal is so totally 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without 
an adversary presentation.2 
 
(4) 
Lewis’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Lewis’s counsel informed Lewis of the provisions of Rule 
                                                 
2 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 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete hearing transcript.  Lewis also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Lewis has 
chosen not to supplement his attorney’s presentation.3  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Lewis’s counsel and has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Lewis’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Lewis’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Lewis could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.4   
 
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  
 
                                                 
3 On April 21, 2010, prior to briefing in this appeal, Lewis filed a “brief of appeal” in 
which he argued that he should be given credit for Level V time spent in Ohio while 
awaiting extradition to Delaware.   
4 Even if we considered Lewis’s April 21, 2010 submission as a supplement to his 
attorney’s presentation, the argument made therein is now moot because the record 
reflects that Lewis was released from custody in June 2010 and is no longer on probation.