IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES ROBERTSON,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 47 1, 2015 § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID 12 11003722 § § §

Submitted: February 11 , 201 6 Decided: April 11 , 2016

Before STRINE
, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ , Justices.

O R D E R

This 11th day of April 2016 , upon consideration of the appellant’ s Supreme
Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney’ s mo tion to withdraw, and the State’ s response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In May 2013, t he defendant

- appellant, James Robertson , pled guilty to

one count each of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited and
Possession of a Weapo n with an Obliterated Serial Number

. On August 23, 2013,

t he Superior Court sentenced Robertson as a habitual offender to a total period of
eight years and one day at Level V imprisonment, with credit for time served, to be
suspended after serving five ye ars and one day in prison for decreasing levels of
supervision

. Robertson did not file a direct appeal

. On August 11, 2014 , he filed a2

motion for postconviction relief. After appointing counsel and holding an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court deni ed Robertson’s motion on August 19,

2015 . This appeal followed.
(2) Robertson’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to

withdraw under Rule 26(c). Robertson’s counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable
issues. By letter, Robertson’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule
26(c) and provided Robertson with a copy of the motion to wi thdraw and the
accompanying brief. Robertson also was informed of his right to supplement his

attorney ’ s presentation. Robertson has not raised any points for the Court’ s consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Robertson’s

counse l and has mov ed 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 brie f under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a)

this Court must be satisfied that defense couns el 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 totally3

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 . In the absence of any
points to consider on appeal, the Court has concluded that Robertson’s appeal is
wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are

satisfied that Robertson’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the
record and the law and has properly determined that Robertson 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
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).