Title: Brown v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN BROWN,1 
 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No. 67, 2014 
Respondent-Below, 
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Family Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County  
§ 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Petitioner-Below,  
 
§ 
File No. 1312003720  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: July 2, 2014 
Decided: 
September 4, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of  September 2014, upon consideration of the 
appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”), his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
On December 6, 2013, the sixteen-year old appellant, Kevin 
Brown, was arrested on one charge of Noncompliance with Conditions of 
Bond.  On January 13, 2014, the Family Court adjudged Brown delinquent 
on that charge and sentenced him to Level V secure care for a mandatory 
                                            
1 By Order dated February 12, 2014, the Court assigned a pseudonym to the juvenile 
appellant.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 
 
minimum commitment of six months with placement at Ferris School, 
followed by Aftercare.  This is Brown’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, Brown’s defense counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 
26(c)”).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel 
states that he provided Brown and his mother with individual copies of 
Counsel’s Rule 26(c) submission and a letter explaining that either Brown or 
his mother could submit points for this Court to consider.  Neither Brown 
nor his mother responded to Counsel or filed any points.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Counsel and has moved to affirm the 
Family Court judgment. 
(3) 
This Court’s consideration of a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to 
withdraw involves two tasks.2  First, the Court must be satisfied that Counsel 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that 
could arguably support the appeal.3  Second, the Court must conduct its own 
review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of 
                                            
2 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 Id. 
3 
 
even arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 
presentation.4 
(4) 
In this case, upon careful review of the record, the Court has 
concluded that Brown’s appeal is wholly without merit.  The State provided 
ample evidence to support the Family Court’s finding that Brown had failed 
to comply with the conditions of his bond, and we cannot discover the 
existence of any appealable issues that are of any arguable merit.  We are 
satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Brown could not raise a meritorious 
issue on appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                            
4 Id.