Title: Johnson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
COURTLAND L. JOHNSON,
§
§
No.  423, 2006
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior 
§
Court of the State of Delaware,
v.
§
in and for Sussex County 
§
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Cr. ID No. 9910010708
Appellee.
§
Submitted:  January 4, 2007
Decided:  March 19, 2007
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19  day of March 2007, upon consideration of the brief filed
th
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”), the motion to withdraw
filed by the appellant’s counsel, and the State’s response to the Rule 26(c) brief,
it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On April 7, 2000, the appellant, Courtland L. Johnson, pleaded
guilty and was sentenced for Possession of a Firearm During the Commission
of a Felony (PFDCF), Reckless Endangering in the First Degree and
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  On July 18, 2006, after a violation of
probation hearing, the Superior Court found Johnson in violation of probation
Penson v.  Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v.  Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
1
486 U.S. 428, 442 (1988); Anders v.  California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Id.
2
2
and resentenced him to fifteen months at Level V for PFDCF.  For first degree
reckless endangering and second degree conspiracy, Johnson was sentenced to
a total of seven years at Level V suspended after boot camp for eighteen
months at Level III aftercare.  This appeal followed.
(2)
On appeal, Johnson’s counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a brief and a
motion pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of review that applies
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 arguably support the appeal.   Second, the Court must conduct its own
1
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.2
(3)
Counsel asserts that he “diligently searched the record, including
the complete transcript” but  was “unable to find any meritorious issue to raise
on appeal.”  Counsel also states that he informed Johnson of the provisions of
Rule 26(c), including Johnson ‘s right to supplement Counsel’s presentation,
3
and delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw, Rule 26(c) brief and the trial
transcript to Johnson on November 22, 2006.
(4)
 Johnson did not submit a written response to Counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and he did not submit any points for this Court’s consideration.  In
its response to the Rule 26(c) brief, the State argues that, in the absence of any
issues presented to the Court for consideration, the Court should affirm the
Superior Court judgment.
(5)
The 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 are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to
examine the record and the law and 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/Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice