Title: Ayres v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDREW A. AYRES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 70, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr.A. No. IS01-10-0666 and  
§  -0669 
§  Cr. ID 0110011416 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 26, 2002 
  Decided: August 9, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of August 2002, 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, Andrew Ayres, pleaded no contest to one 
count of possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school and one count of 
resisting arrest.  The Superior Court sentenced Ayres on both charges to a total of 
six years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended upon successful completion of 
boot camp for five and a half years of probation.  This is Ayres’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Ayres' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Ayres' counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
 
-2- 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Ayres' attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Ayres with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
accompanying brief.  Ayres also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney's presentation.  Ayres did not respond with any points for the 
Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Ayres' 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 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.1 
(4) 
Although Ayres did not present any issues in response to his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, we note that Ayres separately tendered to the 
Court a letter containing his “grounds” for appeal.  Ayres’ letter raises issues 
challenging the circumstances of his arrest and the police officer’s allegedly 
                                                 
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). 
 
 
-3- 
conflicting versions of those events.  The State contends that Ayres has 
waived his right to raise these claims.  We agree.  The transcript of the plea 
colloquy reflects that Ayres entered into his plea agreement knowingly, 
intelligently, and voluntarily.  By entering into the plea agreement, Ayres 
waived his right to attack any alleged defects that preceded the entry of his 
plea.2 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Ayres’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Ayres’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Ayres 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: 
_Myron T. Steele_______________ 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 State v. Stoesser, 183 A.2d 824, 825 (Del. Super. Ct. 1962).