Title: Howard v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HENRY HOWARD,1 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 61, 2010 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court of  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
File No. 0906011000 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 26, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 1, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”), his defense counsel’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
After a hearing on September 23, 2009, a Family Court 
Commissioner found the appellant, Henry Howard, delinquent of 
misdemeanor theft and misdemeanor criminal mischief.  On the same date, 
the Commissioner sentenced Howard to an indefinite commitment at Level 
V suspended for one year of juvenile probation at Level II. 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated February 12, 2010, the Court sua sponte assigned a pseudonym to the 
juvenile appellant.  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
On September 25, 2009, Howard, through his defense counsel, 
filed written objections to the Commissioner’s order.  On October 12, 2009, 
the State filed a response to the objections.  By order dated January 8, 2010, 
a Family Court Judge, after reviewing the matter de novo, affirmed the 
Commissioner’s September 23, 2009 order.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
On appeal, Howard’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Howard’s counsel asserts that, 
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues. 
 
(4) 
The record reflects that Howard’s counsel informed Howard by 
letter of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and appendix.  Counsel also 
informed Howard of his right to supplement counsel’s presentation.  Howard 
has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  In the absence of 
any claim of error, the State has moved to affirm the judgment of the Family 
Court. 
 
(5) 
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.  First, this Court must be satisfied that defense 
counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for 
 
3
arguable claims.2  Second, 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.3 
 
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Howard’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  The Court is satisfied that Howard’s counsel made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Howard 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 Family Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
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.