Title: Ortiz-Lozano v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 416, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARTIN ORTIZ-LOZANO, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 416, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2205009441 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 8, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 24, 2024 
 
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court 
concludes that: 
(1) 
In September 2022, a grand jury charged the appellant, Martin Ortiz-
Lozano, with four counts of first-degree child abuse, one count of second-degree 
child abuse, and two counts of trafficking an individual.  On June 20, 2023, Ortiz-
Lozano pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree child abuse and one count of 
trafficking an individual.   Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle 
prosequi on the remaining charges.  The State also agreed to cap its recommendation 
for any unsuspended Level V time to ten years.  After a presentence investigation, 
2 
 
the Superior Court sentenced Ortiz-Lozano, effective May 26, 2022, to seventy-five 
years of Level V incarceration, suspended after fifteen years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Ortiz-Lozano’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw under 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 informed Ortiz-Lozano of the provisions of Rule 26(c) 
and provided Ortiz-Lozano with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Ortiz-Lozano of his right to identify any points 
he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Ortiz-Lozano has not submitted any 
points for this Court’s consideration.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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  Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that 
Ortiz-Lozano’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
3 
 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort 
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Ortiz-Lozano 
could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court be AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice