Title: Alexander v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
OMAR D. ALEXANDER, 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  620, 2013 
Defendant Below,  
§ 
Appellant,  
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1302017027 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
§ 
Appellee. 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 17, 2014 
  Decided: April 22, 2014 
 
Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of April 2014, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his defense counsel’s 
motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) On July 18, 2013, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
Omar D. Alexander, guilty as charged of Disregarding a Police Officer’s 
Signal, Resisting Arrest, Driving a Vehicle While License is Suspended or 
Revoked, Reckless Driving, and Failure to Use a Turn Signal.  After a 
limited presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Alexander, 
on October 18, 2013, as follows:  ninety days mandatory at Level V plus a 
fine for Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal; one year at Level V 
2 
 
suspended for one year at Level III plus a fine for Resisting Arrest; thirty 
days at Level V suspended for six months at Level III plus a fine for Driving 
while License Suspended or Revoked, and fines for Reckless Driving and 
Failure to Signal.  This is Alexander’s direct appeal. 
(2) On appeal, Alexander’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).1  
Defense counsel claims that, based upon a complete and careful examination 
of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Defense counsel 
further reports that Alexander did not submit any points for the Court’s 
consideration.2  The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s 
defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record for any 
arguable claim.3  The Court must also conduct its own review of the record 
                                
1 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
2 The record reflects that defense counsel provided Alexander, as required, with a copy of 
the motion to withdraw, the brief in draft form and appendix, and a copy of the trial 
transcript, with a letter explaining that Alexander had a right to submit written points for 
the Court’s consideration.  See Id. 
3 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 
 
to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.4 
(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Alexander’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Alexander’s defense counsel made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Alexander could not raise a meritorious claim on 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 
 
                                
4 Id.