Title: Blunt v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRANKLIN BLUNT, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 709, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1309007699 
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 6, 2015 
Decided: 
June 4, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4th day of June, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court 
Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that:   
(1) 
On July 1, 2014, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Franklin 
Blunt, not guilty of Attempted Escape in the Second Degree and guilty of 
Attempting to Remove a Firearm from the Possession of a Law Enforcement 
Officer.  Blunt was sentenced to fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended 
after two years for one year of Level III probation.  This is Blunt’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Blunt’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).  Counsel asserts that, 
 
2 
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Counsel informed Blunt of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Blunt with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Blunt of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Counsel initially informed Blunt that he 
had to deliver any points within fourteen days, instead of thirty days as set forth in 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c)(i)(B), and Blunt did not submit any points.  Counsel 
met with Blunt again to make certain that Blunt did not intend to submit any points 
and Blunt still has not identified any points for this Court to consider.  The State 
has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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.1 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
the Blunt’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Blunt’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Blunt could not 
raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice