Title: Kincaid v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 211, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 28, 2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JESSE KINCAID, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 211, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID Nos. N2210002346 
§                      N2203013888 
§ 
 
Submitted: October 24, 2023 
Decided: 
November 28, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 
appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 
record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On February 27, 2023, the appellant, Jesse Kincaid, resolved charges 
in multiple cases by pleading guilty to stalking, noncompliance with bond 
conditions, and criminal contempt of a domestic violence protective order.  In 
exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss multiple other charges and 
to cap its sentencing recommendation at three years of unsuspended Level V time.  
On May 19, 2023, the Superior Court sentenced Kincaid to a total of six years of 
 
2 
incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing levels of supervision.  This 
is Kincaid’s direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Kincaid’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Kincaid’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.  
In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Kincaid 
of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel also informed Kincaid of his right 
to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal.  Kincaid has not 
submitted any points for the Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.  
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1  This 
Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”2 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 
429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82. 
 
3 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We 
also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 
the law and properly determined that Kincaid could not raise a meritorious claim on 
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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice