Title: Allen v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 388, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 18, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KINJUM ALLEN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 388, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. N99-03-0863-I and 
§  VN97-11-0266-03 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 30, 2002 
  Decided: November 18, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of November 2002, 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) 
In May 1999, the defendant-appellant, Kinjum Allen, pled 
guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver heroin.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Allen to five years incarceration suspended for the boot 
camp diversion program.1  In June 2002, the Superior Court found Allen in 
violation of the terms of his boot camp probation based on Allen’s own 
admissions that he, among other things, had used illegal drugs and had fled 
                                                 
1 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 6712 (2001).  
the jurisdiction and committed new crimes.  On the violation, the Superior 
Court sentenced Allen to five years incarceration followed by two years 
probation.  This is Allen’s appeal. 
(2) 
Allen's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Allen's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Allen's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Allen with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Allen also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Allen has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Allen'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.2 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Allen’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Allen's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Allen 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
 
                                                 
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).