Title: LaCombe v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PAUL LACOMBE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 502, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1112018546 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 24, 2014 
  Decided: April 9, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of April 2014, 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) 
On March 19, 2013, the defendant-appellant, Paul LaCombe, pled 
guilty but mentally ill to one count each of Murder in the First Degree and 
Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  LaCombe had been charged with two counts of 
capital murder and multiple related attempted robbery and weapon offenses in the 
shooting deaths of two victims.  On May 24, 2013, he filed a motion to withdraw 
his guilty plea, which the Superior Court denied in a written decision dated 
2 
 
September 17, 2013.  The Superior Court sentenced LaCombe to life imprisonment 
and a term of probation.  This is LaCombe’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
LaCombe’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  LaCombe’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, LaCombe’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided LaCombe with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  LaCombe also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney's presentation.  LaCombe has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by LaCombe’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 determine whether the appeal is so totally 
devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an 
adversary presentation.* 
                                                 
*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). 
3 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
LaCombe’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that LaCombe’s counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that 
LaCombe 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