Title: Burton v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

See generally Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4214(a), (b) (2001 & Supp. 2004) (providing
1
for sentencing as habitual criminal).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARVIN T. BURTON,
§
§
No.  577, 2005
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court  
§
of the State of Delaware in  
v.
§
and for Sussex County
§
 STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr. ID No. 0410003743
Appellee.
§
Submitted: July 10, 2006
Decided:
August 21, 2006
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 21  day of August 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
st
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)
In August 2005, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant,
Marvin T. Burton, of one count each of Rape in the First Degree, Rape in the
Second Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the Second Degree.  The
Superior Court declared Burton a habitual criminal and sentenced him to two
life sentences plus two years at Level V.   This appeal followed.
1
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v.  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
2
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v.  California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Id.
3
2
(2)
On appeal, Burton’s counsel (“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 two-fold.  First, the Court must be satisfied that
Counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for
claims that could arguably support the appeal.   Second, the Court must conduct
2
its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so devoid of
at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary
presentation.   
3
(3)
Counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
Counsel informed Burton of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him
with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the
complete trial transcript.  Burton was also informed of his right to supplement
Counsel’s presentation.  Burton did not submit any points for this Court to
consider.  The State has responded to the position taken by Counsel and has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
3
(4)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Burton’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that
Burton 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