Title: Smith v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 512, 2017 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1602012206 (N)  
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 11, 2018 
 
Decided: 
May 17, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of May 2018, 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 August 30, 2017, the appellant, Robert Smith, pled guilty, but 
mentally ill to Murder in the First Degree and Possession of a Deadly Weapon 
During the Commission of a Felony.  On November 2, 2017, the Superior Court 
sentenced Smith as follows: (i) for Murder in the First Degree, life imprisonment; 
and (ii) for Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, 
twenty-five years of Level V incarceration, followed by six months of Level IV 
probation.  Smith was to be held at the Delaware Psychiatric Center for evaluation, 
 
2 
treatment, and counseling until the Delaware Psychiatric Center informed the 
Superior Court that he could be returned to a Department of Correction facility.  This 
is Smith’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Smith’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  Counsel informed Smith of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Smith 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Smith of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Smith has not raised any issues for this 
Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has 
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) 
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 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Smith’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the 
record and the law and has properly determined that Smith 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