Title: Carmona v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 532, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CAREY CARMONA,
§
§
No. 532, 2004
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below--Superior Court 
§
of the State of Delaware, in and
v.
§
for Kent County, in Cr. A. Nos.
§
IK03-06-1125 to 1129.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Def. ID No. 0306011657
Submitted: April 22, 2005
Decided:
June 20, 2005
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices.
O R D E R
This 20  day of June 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s
th
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 a two-day trial on September 8 and 9, 2004, a Superior Court
jury convicted the appellant, Carey Carmona, of Burglary in the First Degree,
Possession of a Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, Possession of
Burglar’s Tools, Attempted Theft, and Resisting Arrest.  The Superior Court
At the same time, Carmona was also sentenced on charges to which he pleaded
1
guilty on September 28, 2004.  State v. Carmona, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. IK04-05-0116, Cr.
ID No. 0404016969; Cr. A. No. IK04-05-0122, Cr. ID No. 0404017788, Jurden, J. (Nov. 10,
2004).
2
sentenced Carmona to a total of ten years at Level V suspended after five years
for three years of probation.   This is Carmona’s direct appeal.
1
(2)
Carmona’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  Counsel represents that she provided Carmona with a copy
of the motion to withdraw and the Rule 26(c) brief and informed  Carmona of
his right to supplement the brief with any point that he wanted the Court to
consider.  Carmona did not submit any points for this Court’s consideration.
The State has responded to the position taken by Carmona’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 Supreme Court Rule
26(c) is twofold.  First, this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has
made a conscientious examination of the record and of the law for arguable
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
2
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).  
Id.
3
3
claims.   Second, this Court must conduct its own review of the record and
2
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably appealable
issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.3
(4)
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Carmona’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Carmona’s counsel made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined
that Carmona 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/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice