IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MYRON L. HUNT,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 175, 2020

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1908019552 (S)

§

§

§

Submitted: October 14, 2020

Decided: October 26, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On February 12, 2020, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 

Myron L. Hunt, guilty of drug dealing (cocaine) in a Tier 2 quantity plus an 

aggravating factor (commission of the offense in an automobile) and possession of 

drug paraphernalia. On April 23, 2020, the Superior Court sentenced Hunt for the 

drug-dealing offense to twenty-five years of imprisonment, suspended after three 

years for eighteen months of Level III probation, and for possession of drug 

paraphernalia to one year of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III 
2

probation. The Superior Court later corrected the sentence for possession of drug 

paraphernalia to six months of imprisonment, suspended for one year of Level III 

probation. This is Hunt’s direct appeal.

(2) On appeal, Hunt’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 

under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Hunt’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 

conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit. 

In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Hunt of 

the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 

and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Hunt of his right to submit 

points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Hunt has not submitted any points 

for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and 

argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. 

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 

under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 This 

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 

presentation.”2

 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 

429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.
3

(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 

appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We 

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 

the law and properly determined that Hunt could not raise a meritorious claim on 

appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura__________________

Justice