Title: Flonnory v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
FREDDIE FLONNORY,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 411, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. Nos. IN00-10-1759 
§                   IN01-01-1276
§
Submitted: April 9, 2002
  Decided:   April 29, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices
O R D E R
This 29th day of April 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)
The defendant-appellant, Freddie Flonnory, was convicted by a
Superior Court jury of Assault in a Detention Facility and Reckless Burning.
On the assault conviction, Flonnory was sentenced to 8 years incarceration at
Level V, to be suspended after 7 ½ years for 6 months of Level III probation.
On the reckless burning conviction, he was sentenced to 1 year incarceration
at Level V.  This is Flonnory’s direct appeal.
1Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
(continued...)
-2-
(2)
Flonnory’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Flonnory’s counsel asserts that, based upon
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Flonnory’s attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Flonnory also was informed of his
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Flonnory has not raised any
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position
taken by Flonnory’s 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 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.1
1(...continued)
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2Although Flonnory did not raise any points for this Court to consider, his counsel
states that, at sentencing, Flonnory was concerned about the length of the sentence the
Superior Court imposed.  Flonnory’s counsel concedes, however, that Flonnory’s sentence
did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the Superior Court.  Siple v. State, 701 A.2d
79 (Del. 1997); Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839 (Del. 1992).  
-3-
(4)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Flonnory’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Flonnory’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Flonnory could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.2
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/Joseph T. Walsh
      Justice