Title: Hammond v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HAKEEM HAMMOND, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 212, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0906016646 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2010 
  Decided: September 23, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of September 2010, upon consideration of the 
appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to 
withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
A Superior Court jury found the defendant-appellant, Hakeem 
Hammond, guilty of one count each of possession of a firearm by a person 
prohibited and resisting arrest.  The Superior Court sentenced Hammond to 
three years and six months at Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 
serving 45 days in prison for eighteen months at decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This is Hammond’s direct appeal. 
 
2 
(2) 
Hammond's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hammond's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Hammond's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Hammond with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Hammond also was informed of 
his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Hammond has not raised 
any issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Hammond's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior 
Court's judgment. 
(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:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) 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.* 
                                                 
*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 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hammond’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hammond's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Hammond 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