Title: Cunningham v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEREMY CUNNINGHAM, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 326, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0812000249 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 29, 2009 
Decided: 
November 30, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of November 2009, 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, Jeremy Cunningham (Cunningham), 
pled guilty on May 5, 2009 to third degree burglary and second degree 
conspiracy.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Cunningham to a 
period of five years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately 
for six months at Level IV home confinement, followed by one year of 
probation.  This is Cunningham’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Cunningham's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion 
to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Cunningham's counsel asserts that, 
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Cunningham's attorney informed him 
of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Cunningham with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Cunningham also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Cunningham 
has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Cunningham'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). 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Cunningham’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Cunningham's counsel 
has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has 
properly determined that Cunningham 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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice