Title: Brown v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD E. BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 83, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. VN97-11-0238-03 
§  Cr. ID 9710016845 
§ 
 
Submitted: July 23, 2003 
  Decided: August 4, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 4
th day of August 2003, 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 January 2003, the Superior Court found the defendant-
appellant, Ronald Brown, in violation of the terms of his probation for the 
third time.  The Superior Court revoked Brown’s probation and sentenced 
him to serve three and a half years at Level V incarceration to be suspended 
after one year for decreasing levels of supervision.  A probation officer 
testified at the hearing that he witnessed Brown driving in a reckless manner 
while Brown’s license was suspended.  The officers involved gave chase, 
 
2
but were forced to abandon the chase for safety reasons.  Brown testified the 
police had mistakenly identified him as the perpetrator.  The Superior Court 
credited the officer’s testimony.  This is Brown’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Brown's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Brown's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Brown's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Brown with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Brown also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Brown has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Brown'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 
 
 
-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 Brown’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Brown's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Brown 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).