IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN BOONE, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 251, 2019 § § § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1803002540 (N) § § Submitted: August 29, 2019 Decided: October 28, 2019 Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the Stat e’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On December 3, 2018, the appellant, Kevin Boone, pleaded guilty to two counts of third degree rape. The Superi or Court deferred sent encing. On March 22, 2019, the Superior Court sentenced Boone to an aggregate of forty years of Level V incarceration, suspended after six years fo r five years of Level III probation. This is Boone’s direct appeal. (2) Boone’s counsel on appeal has file d a brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, afte r a complete and care ful examination of the record, there are no arguabl y appealable issues. Couns el informed Boone of the2 provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Boone with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel inform ed Boone of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Boone did not fi le a written response raising any issues for this Court’s consideration. 1 The State has responded to the position taken by Boone’s counsel and has moved to affi rm the Superior Court’s judgment. (3) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an ac companying brief 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 totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation. 2 (4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and ha s concluded that Boone’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Boone’s coun sel has made a conscientious effort to

1 Four days after his sentencing, Boone filed a motion for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. The motion was denied a nd Boone appealed. In that app eal, Boone raised arguments that his counsel initially included as points to be considered in this appeal. Counsel subsequently amended his Rule 26(c) brief to clarify that Boone has not submitted points for us to consider in his direct appeal. Boone will have the opportun ity to fully litigate his postconviction arguments because we reversed the Superior Court’s denial of his untimely-filed motion for postconviction relief and directed the Superior Court to vacate its order without prejudice. Boone v. State , 2019 WL 2524188 (Del. June 18, 2019). 2 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 examine the record and the law and has pr operly determined th at Boone could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is GRANTED. The ju dgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice