Title: Reyes v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BERNEBE REYES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 279, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. VN00-04-1122 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: November 6, 2002 
  Decided: November 25, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of November 2002, 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) 
In May 2000, the defendant-appellant, Bernebe Reyes, pled 
guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine.  The Superior Court deferred 
sentencing and diverted Reyes to the boot camp program for a period of six 
months followed by two and a half years of probation.1  In January 2002, 
Reyes was charged with a violation of probation (VOP).  While awaiting a 
hearing on the VOP charge, Reyes was returned to the boot camp program 
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6712 (2001).  
 
2 
for a 90-day “tune-up.”  While doing his “tune-up,” Reyes was charged with 
additional violations resulting from his alleged refusal to follow the 
instructions of a boot camp officer. Following a hearing at which Reyes 
admitted many of the alleged violations but disputed the circumstances 
surrounding them, the Superior Court found Reyes in violation of the terms 
of his boot camp probation and his boot camp “tune-up.”  The Superior 
Court sentenced Reyes to three years incarceration followed by two years 
probation.  This is Reyes’ appeal. 
(2) 
Reyes' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Reyes' counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Reyes' attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Reyes with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Reyes also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Reyes has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Reyes' 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision. 
(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 
 
 
-3- 
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.2 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Reyes’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Reyes' counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Reyes 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 
 
                                                 
2 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).