Title: Insley v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS INSLEY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 179, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  UCN No. 0301011316 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 20, 2004 
  Decided: October 27, 2004 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of October 2004, 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, Thomas Insley, was adjudicated 
delinquent of second degree rape.  The Family Court sentenced Insley to an 
indefinite commitment at a Level V youth facility.  This is Insley’s direct 
appeal. 
(2) 
Insley's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Insley's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
 
 
-2- 
appealable issues.  By letter, Insley's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Insley with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Insley also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Insley has not raised any issues 
for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Insley's counsel and has moved to affirm the Family 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 of 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 Insley’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Insley's counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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- 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Insley 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 Family Court is AFFIRMED.  
The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
                     /s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice