Title: Griffin v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROLAND GRIFFIN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 321, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0911002315 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 10, 2010 
  Decided: November 24, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of November 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Roland Griffin, pled guilty on May 3, 
2010 to one count of failure to register/re-register as a sex offender.  The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Griffin to a period of nine months at 
Level V incarceration with credit for 102 days previously served.  This is 
Griffin’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Griffin’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Griffin’s counsel asserts that, based upon 
2 
 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Griffin’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Griffin with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Griffin also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Griffin has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Griffin’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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Griffin’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Griffin’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Griffin 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