Title: Hunt v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH HUNT, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 335, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0602007649 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 6, 2006 
Decided: 
December 26, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of December 2006, 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, Joseph Hunt (Hunt), pled guilty in 
March 2006 to possession with intent to distribute marijuana.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Hunt to five years at Level V imprisonment to be suspended 
after serving three years for probation.  This is Hunt’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Hunt's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hunt's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
 
2
appealable issues.  By letter, Hunt's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Hunt with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Hunt also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Hunt has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Hunt'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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hunt’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hunt's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Hunt could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
*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
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/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         Justice