Title: Hamby v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 504, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICKY HAMBY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 504, 2003 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr.A. No. IN02-12-1917 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 5, 2004 
  Decided: March 1, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of March 2004, 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) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Ricky 
Hamby, of felony theft.  The Superior Court sentenced Hamby to two years at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended after one year for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This is Hamby’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Hamby's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hamby's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and 
careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
 
 
-2- 
letter sent to Hamby’s two last known addresses, counsel informed Hamby of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 
and the accompanying brief.  Hamby also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Hamby did not respond with any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Hamby's counsel 
and has moved 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 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 determine whether the appeal is so totally 
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 and has concluded that 
Hamby’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Hamby's counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Hamby could 
not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
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- 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
Justice