Title: Foreman v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GREGORY E. FOREMAN,
§
§
No. 458, 2005
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware in and
v.
§
for Sussex County 
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Cr. ID No. 0209008459
Submitted: January 30, 2006
Decided:
March 28, 2006
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 28   day of March 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
th
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 September 2003, the appellant, Gregory E. Foreman, pleaded
guilty to Escape in the Second Degree.  The Superior Court sentenced Foreman
to two years at Level V suspended after six months for eighteen months of
probation.  The Superior Court also ordered that Foreman “be evaluated for
State v. Foreman, Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 0209008459, Graves, J. (Sept. 2, 2003).
1
2
substance abuse and follow any recommendations for counseling, testing or
treatment deemed appropriate.”1
(2)
On December 28, 2004, Foreman was charged with having
violated the conditions of his probation, including that he had refused to submit
to a random drug screen.  When Foreman failed to appear at the violation of
probation (VOP) hearing that was scheduled for January 18, 2005, the Superior
Court issued a capias for his return.  Upon Foreman’s apprehension the
following August, a VOP hearing was scheduled for August 30, 2005.
(3)
At the VOP hearing, Foreman admitted that he had not complied
with the Superior Court’s order to be evaluated for substance abuse and denied
the remaining allegations of VOP.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Superior Court found Foreman guilty of VOP and sentenced him to two years
at Level V suspended upon successful completion of the Level V Key and
Level IV Residential Substance Abuse Treatment programs for Level III
aftercare.  This appeal followed.
(4)
On appeal, Foreman’s defense 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
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
3
brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold.  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
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
(5)
Foreman’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel
informed Foreman in writing of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel
also informed Foreman of his right to supplement her presentation.
(6)
Foreman did not submit any points for this Court to consider.  The
State has responded to the position taken by Foreman’s counsel and has moved
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(7)
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Foreman’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Foreman’s counsel made a
4
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law, and that she properly
determined that Foreman 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