Title: Curry v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARC J. CURRY,  
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  210, 2002 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court of the State of Delaware, 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
in and for Sussex County in 
§ 
S01-11-0172 and 0178. 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
Def.  ID No.  0110018892 
 
Submitted: August 2, 2002 
Decided: 
October 7, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of October 2002, 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) 
On March 20, 2002, Marc J. Curry pleaded guilty to Trafficking in 
Cocaine and Resisting Arrest.  Curry was immediately sentenced to a total of 
four years at Level V incarceration, suspended after three years for one year at 
Level II supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Curry’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review applicable to 
 
 
2 
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 defense 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 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) 
Curry’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Curry’s counsel informed Curry of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Curry 
was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Curry 
did not submit any points for this Court to consider.  The State has responded to 
the position taken by Curry’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
*Penson v.  Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v.  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 
U.S. 428, 442 (1988); Anders v.  California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
 
 
3 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Curry’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Curry’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Curry 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/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice