Title: Cole v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT G. COLE, JR.,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 570, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  Cr. ID No. 9810003094
§
§
Submitted: April 1, 2002
  Decided:
May  6, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6TH day of May 2002, 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)
The defendant-appellant, Robert G. Cole, Jr., pled guilty in
1998 to one count of trafficking cocaine.  The Superior Court, pursuant to 11
Del. C. § 6712, deferred sentencing on Cole’s conviction in order to permit
Cole to complete the first offender boot camp diversion program.  In July
-2-
2001, Cole was charged with a violation of probation (VOP).1  Following a
hearing on October 26, 2001, the Superior Court found Cole in violation of
probation and sentenced him, effective July 19, 2001, to a three year
minimum mandatory term of incarceration, followed by six months
probation.  This is Cole’s appeal from that sentence.
(2)
Cole's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Cole's counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Cole's attorney informed him of the provisions
of Rule 26(c) and provided Cole with a copy of the motion to withdraw and
the accompanying brief.  Cole also was informed of his right to supplement
his attorney's presentation.  Cole has raised several issues for this Court's
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Cole's
counsel, as well as the points raised by Cole, and has moved to affirm the
Superior Court's decision.
(3)
The standard and scope of review applicable to the
consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under
                                                
1 This was Cole’s second VOP charge. The first VOP was withdrawn after the
Department of Correction administratively transferred Cole to Level IV work release for
a period of six months.
-3-
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.2
(4)
In his letter to counsel, Cole raises two identifiable concerns.
First, Cole contends that he should have appeared before his original
sentencing judge for the hearing regarding his violation of boot camp
conditions.  Next, Cole asserts that his VOP sentence was excessive.  We
find no merit to either contention.
(5)
Cole offers no support for his suggestion that only his original
sentencing judge could hear and determine the VOP charge.  There is no
such procedural requirement, and we reject this contention.
(6)
Furthermore, the three year minimum mandatory sentence
imposed by the Superior Court was required by statute.  Pursuant to 11 Del.
C. § 6712(h), if the Superior Court finds that a defendant has violated any
terms or conditions of boot camp supervision or probation, the court “shall
impose not less than the full applicable Level V sentence mandated for the
                                                
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of
-4-
offense(s) of which the offender was convicted.”3  Because Cole had been
convicted of trafficking, which carries a three year minimum mandatory
term,4 the Superior Court had no discretion and was required to impose the
full three year term.
(7)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Cole’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Cole's counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Cole 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/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice
                                                                                                                                                
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
3 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6712(h) (2001).
4 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4753A(a)(2)a (2001).