Title: Crawford v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GARY A. CRAWFORD,
§
§
No.  530, 2001
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware,
v.
§
in and for Kent County in
§
IK01-01-0168, IK00-12-0243,
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
0244.
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def.  ID No.  0011014806
Submitted: May 9, 2002
Decided:
June 13, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 13th day of June 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief
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 June 2001, the defendant-appellant, Gary A. Crawford, pleaded
guilty to one count of Rape in the Third Degree, as a lesser-included offense of
Rape in the First Degree, and two counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child.
After a pre-sentence investigation, Crawford was sentenced, on September 26,
2001, to a total of thirty years at Level V, suspended after nine years, followed
*Penson v.  Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v.  Court of Appeals of
Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 428, 442 (1988); Anders v.  California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2
by eighteen months at Level IV work release, one year at Level III and two
years at Level II.  This appeal followed.
(2)
On appeal, Crawford’s 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 brief under
Rule 26(c) is two-fold.  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 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)
Crawford’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
Crawford’s counsel informed Crawford of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying
brief.  Crawford was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s
presentation.  Crawford did not submit any points for this Court to consider.
3
The State has responded to the position taken by Crawford’s counsel and has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
(4)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Crawford’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Crawford’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Crawford 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. 
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice