Title: Jones v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LASHAWNDA JONES,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
           Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 72, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1012007062 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: June 26, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 10, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 10th day of July 2012, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), her attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Lashawnda Jones, pleaded guilty to 
Robbery in the First Degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and Conspiracy 
in the Second Degree.  On the first degree robbery conviction, she was 
sentenced to 20 years of Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 10 
years for 8 months at Level IV and 2 years at Level III probation.  On the 
second degree robbery conviction, she was sentenced to 5 years at Level V, 
to be suspended after 3 years for 2 years of concurrent Level III probation.  
 
2
On the conspiracy conviction, she was sentenced to 2 years at Level V, to be 
suspended for 1 year of concurrent Level III probation.  This is Jones’s 
direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
Jones’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Jones’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record and the law, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Jones’s attorney informed her of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided her with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Jones also was informed of her right 
to supplement her attorney’s presentation.  Jones has not raised any issues 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Jones’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 in order 
 
3
to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Jones’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Jones’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Jones 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
1 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).