Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RASHAN JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 92, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0307016906 and 
§  0711010012 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 4, 2010 
Decided:  June 24, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of June 2010, 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) 
As a result of new criminal charges, the defendant-appellant, 
Rashan Johnson (Johnson), was found to have violated the terms of his 
probationary sentence associated with two prior convictions.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Johnson on the VOP a total period of five years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after serving four years.  This is Johnson’s 
appeal from his VOP sentence. 
 
2 
(2) 
Johnson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Johnson's counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Johnson's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Johnson with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Johnson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Johnson has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Johnson'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:  (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.* 
                                                 
*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 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Johnson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Johnson's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Johnson 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice