Title: Poore v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARVIN POORE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 263, 2021 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1911006147 (K) 
§                      1911006225 (K) 
§                      1911006036 (K) 
 
Submitted: January 13, 2022 
   Decided: March 8, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court 
Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the State’s response, and the record 
on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On April 29, 2021, the appellant, Marvin Poore, resolved five sets of 
criminal charges by pleading guilty to two counts of second-degree burglary, one 
count of attempted second-degree burglary, and one count of third-degree burglary.  
Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Poore to an 
aggregate of eighteen years of imprisonment followed by decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This is Poore’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Poore’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a conscientious review of the entire 
record and the law, she has concluded that this appeal is wholly without merit.  
Poore’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Poore 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also 
informed Poore of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Poore has not 
raised any issues for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Poore’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.  First, 
the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious 
examination of the record and the law for claims that could be arguably be raised on 
appeal. 1  Second, the 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 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442 
(1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82. 
3 
 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Poore’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues.  
We also are satisfied that Poore’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Poore could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice