Title: Broadnax v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DARIUS BROADNAX, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 412, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN03-06-0927 and -2451 
§  Cr. ID 0304012678 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 3, 2005 
  Decided: March 22, 2005 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of March 2005, 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, Darius Broadnax, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury of second degree murder (as a lesser included offense to 
first degree murder) and possession of a deadly weapon during the 
commission of a felony.  The Superior Court sentenced Broadnax to twenty 
years in prison followed by four years of probation.  This is Broadnax’s 
direct appeal. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Broadnax's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Broadnax's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Broadnax's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Broadnax with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Broadnax also was informed of 
his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Broadnax has not raised 
any issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Broadnax'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 Broadnax’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Broadnax's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Broadnax 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice