Title: Mercado v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 652, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANGEL MERCADO, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  652, 2015 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1411003995 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: April 7, 2016 
Decided: 
June 2, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of June 2016, having considered the no-merit brief and motion 
to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the 
State’s response, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 3, 2015, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
Angel Mercado, guilty of Driving under the Influence.  After a presentence 
investigation, Mercado was sentenced, effective November 13, 2015, to two years 
at Level V incarceration, suspended after ninety days for one year at Level III 
probation.  This is Mercado’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, Mercado’s trial counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a no-merit 
brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts 
2 
 
that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues. 
(3) 
Counsel informed Mercado of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Mercado with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief and appendix in draft form.  Counsel also informed Mercado of his right to 
identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Mercado has not 
raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1   Also, 
the Court must 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 
(5) 
In this case, having conducted “a full examination of all the 
proceedings” and having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal,”3 the Court 
                                
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). 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81.  
3 Id. at 80. 
3 
 
concludes that Mercado’s appeal “is wholly without merit.”4  The Court is satisfied 
that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and 
properly determined that Mercado 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 
  
                                
4  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c).