Title: Jackson v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DERRICK L. JACKSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 91, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-09-0382,0383 
§                               0385,0386 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   August 16, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of August 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and 
the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Derrick L. Jackson, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of two counts of Burglary in the Second Degree and two 
counts of Theft.  Jackson was sentenced as an habitual offender and received a 
sentence of 10 years incarceration at Level V on each of his burglary convictions.1  
On each of his theft convictions, Jackson was sentenced to 1 year incarceration at 
                                                          
 
1DEL. CODE ANN. tit 11, § 4214(a). 
 
2
Level V, to be suspended for 1 year at Level II probation.  This is Jackson’s direct 
appeal. 
   
(2) 
Jackson’s trial counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) 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; and (b) 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   
 
(3) 
Jackson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Jackson’s counsel informed Jackson of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the 
complete hearing transcript.  Jackson was also informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney’s presentation.  Jackson has chosen not to supplement his attorney’s 
presentation.  The State has responded to the position taken by Jackson’s counsel 
and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                          
 
2Penson 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 
Jackson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We are also satisfied that Jackson’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and has properly determined that Jackson 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________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice