Title: Miller v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 667, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 18, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT MILLER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 667, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§  Cr. ID 1412002671 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 6, 2016 
Decided: 
May 18, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This 18th day of May 2016, 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) 
On June 9, 2015, the defendant-appellant, Robert Miller, pled 
guilty to one count of Assault in the Second Degree.  In exchange for his 
plea, the State dismissed a charge of Offensive Touching and agreed to 
recommend a sentence of no more than three years imprisonment.  On 
November 13, 2015, the Superior Court sentenced Miller to eight years at 
Level V imprisonment without benefit of any form of early release, under 11 
 
2
Del. C. § 4204(k), to be followed by six months at Level IV.  This is 
Miller’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
Miller’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Miller’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Miller’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Miller with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Miller also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Miller did not file any points for 
this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by 
Miller’s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
This Court’s review of a motion to withdraw and an 
accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold:  (i) we must be satisfied 
that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and 
the law for arguable claims; and (ii) we must conduct our 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.1 
                                                 
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). 
 
3
 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Miller’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Miller’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Miller could not raise a meritorious claim in this 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice