Title: Scruggs v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAMMOT SCRUGGS,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 193, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1107000268 
§ 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: October 8, 2012 
 
Decided: 
October 15, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) The defendant-appellant, Lammot Scruggs, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Terroristic Threatening and Contempt of a Protection 
From Abuse Order.  The jury was deadlocked on the additional charges of 
Burglary in the Second Degree, Offensive Touching and Endangering the 
Welfare of a Child.  Before a re-trial on those additional charges, Scruggs 
pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Second Degree.  In exchange for the guilty 
plea, the State dismissed the remaining charges and did not seek Scruggs 
 
2
being sentenced as a habitual offender.  Scruggs was sentenced to a total of 7 
years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 4 years for 6 months at 
Level III probation.  This is Scruggs’ direct appeal. 
 
(2) Scruggs’ counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Scruggs’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record and the law, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Scruggs’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Scruggs with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Scruggs also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Scruggs has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Scruggs’ 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 any arguable claims; 
and (b) this Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine 
 
3
whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues 
that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.* 
 
(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Scruggs’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Scruggs’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Scruggs 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
* See 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).