Title: Torres v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 608, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CARLOS TORRES, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 608, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1708002168 (N) 
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 6, 2019 
  Decided: June 12, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his 
attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 30, 2018, the appellant, Carlos Torres, pleaded guilty to one 
count of second degree assault and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.  
The Superior Court ordered a presentence investigation.  On November 30, 2018, 
the Superior Court sentenced Torres to a total of nine years of Level V incarceration, 
suspended after three years for eighteen months of Level III probation.  This is 
Torres’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Torres’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
under Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of 
2 
 
the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Torres’ attorney informed him 
of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Torres with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel informed Torres of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Torres did not file a written response raising 
any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Torres’ 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.1 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Torres’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
We also are satisfied that Torres’ counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and has properly determined that Torres 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/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice