Title: Barrett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THEODORE BARRETT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 342, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1012015183 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 16, 2012 
Decided: 
May 1, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of May 2012, 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, 
Theodore Barrett, of one count of theft by false pretenses of $50,000 or 
more, two counts of theft by false pretenses of $1500 or more, one count of 
attempted theft by false pretenses of $50,000 or more, and one count of 
offering a false instrument for filing.  The Superior Court sentenced Barrett 
to a total period of fifteen years at Level V incarceration, with credit for 
2 
 
thirty days previously served, to be suspended after serving four years for 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Barrett’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Barrett’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Barrett’s counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Barrett’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Barrett with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Barrett also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Barrett has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Barrett’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 
3 
 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Barrett’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Barrett’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Barrett 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 
                                                 
*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).