Title: Avila v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 320, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 11, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSE AVILA, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 320, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 1312008934 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 3, 2014 
  Decided: December 11, 2014 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY, and VALIHURA, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of December 2014, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Jose Avila, was convicted by a 
Superior Court jury in June 2014 of Driving Under the Influence (third 
offense).  The Superior Court sentenced him to a total period of five years at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving two years followed by 
decreasing levels of supervision.  This is Avila’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Avila's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Avila's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Avila's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Avila with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Avila also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Avila did not respond with any points for the 
Court’s consideration. 
(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 Avila’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Avila's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Avila 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/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice