Title: Davidson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 242, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVE DAVIDSON, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 242, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.ID 0105007825 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 23, 2004 
  Decided: October 14, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of October 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) 
After being charged with 34 crimes in two separate indictments, 
the defendant-appellant, Dave Davidson, pled guilty on September 24, 2002 
to one count each of receiving stolen property, second degree conspiracy, 
and forging a manufacturer’s certificate of origin.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Davidson immediately to a total six-year sentence, which was 
suspended entirely for time served and five years of probation supervision.  
The Superior Court ordered that restitution be calculated within 90 days and 
 
 
-2-
that Davidson thereafter would have an opportunity to respond to the 
restitution amount.  On February 14, 2003, the Superior Court issued a 
modified sentencing order requiring Davidson to pay total restitution of 
$214,993.51.  In February 2004, Davidson sought modification of the 
restitution order, which the Superior Court denied.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
Davidson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Davidson's counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Davidson's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Davidson with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Davidson also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Davidson has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Davidson'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 
 
 
-3-
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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Davidson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Davidson's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Davidson 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 
                                                 
*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).