Title: Warren v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 477, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 24, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARK A. WARREN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 477, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0407015658 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 17, 2007 
  Decided: April 24, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of April 2007, 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, Mark 
Warren (Warren), of first degree assault (as a lesser included offense to 
attempted first degree murder) and two weapon charges.  The Superior Court 
sentenced Warren as an habitual offender to life imprisonment on the assault 
conviction plus additional terms of imprisonment on the weapon 
convictions.  This is Warren’s direct appeal. 
 
2
(2) 
Warren's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Warren's counsel asserts that, based upon 
a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Warren's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Warren with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Warren also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Warren has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Warren'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.* 
                                                 
*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) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Warren’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Warren's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Warren 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