Title: Hackett v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ANDRE HACKETT,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 222, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. No. IN99-01-1314W and
§  -1315W
§
Submitted: November 1, 2001
  Decided:
November  14, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 14th day of November 2001, 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, Andre Hackett, was convicted by a
Superior Court jury of delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine within
1000 feet of a school. The Superior Court sentenced Hackett on both charges
to a total of thirteen years at Level V incarceration, suspended after five
years for decreasing levels of supervision.  At trial, Hackett’s defense
counsel attempted to raise reasonable doubt by challenging the undercover
2
police officer’s identification of Hackett and suggesting that Hackett had
been mistaken for his brother.  This is Hackett’s direct appeal.
(2)
Hackett's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hackett's counsel asserts that, based upon
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Hackett's attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Hackett with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Hackett also was informed of his
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Hackett has not raised any
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position
taken by Hackett's 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
3
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 Hackett’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hackett's counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Hackett 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/ E. Norman Veasey
                                                                     Chief Justice
                                                
*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).