Title: Reynolds v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 93, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID I. REYNOLDS,  
 
§ 
§ 
No.  93, 2012 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1108008814 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: August 6, 2012 
Decided: 
October 18, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of October 2012, upon consideration of the appellant=s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney=s motion to 
withdraw, and the State=s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 17, 2012, a Superior Court jury found the 
appellant, David I. Reynolds, guilty of Robbery in the Second Degree and 
Offensive Touching.  Reynolds was immediately sentenced to a total of five 
years and ten days suspended after fifteen months followed by six months at 
Level IV and eighteen months at Level III.  This is Reynolds’ direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Reynolds’ appellate counsel (“Counsel”)1 has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”).2  
Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the 
record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel also reports that 
Reynolds did not submit any points for the Court’s consideration.3  The State 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 
brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has 
made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.4  The Court must also 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.5 
(4) 
In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Reynolds’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a 
                                            
1 Reynolds was represented by different counsel at trial.   
2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 
3 The record reflects that Counsel provided Reynolds, as required, with a copy of the 
motion, the brief and appendix, and a letter explaining that Reynolds had a right to 
submit written points for the Court’s consideration.  Id. 
4 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).  
5 Id. 
3 
 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Reynolds could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice