Title: Jones v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 132, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 16, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KALVIN L. JONES, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 132, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0504012765 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  October 27, 2006 
Decided:  November 16, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of November 2006, 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) 
A Superior Court jury found the defendant-appellant, Kalvin 
Jones (Jones), guilty of one count of attempted first degree murder and one 
count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Jones to a total minimum mandatory term of 
eighteen years at Level V incarceration to be followed by decreasing levels 
of supervision.  This is Jones’ direct appeal. 
 
2
(2) 
Jones’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Jones’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Jones’ attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Jones with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Jones also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Jones sent a letter to counsel raising two 
discernible issues.  The State has responded to the position taken by Jones 
and by Jones’ 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  
                                                 
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
(4) 
Jones first argues about alleged inconsistencies in the testimony 
of State witnesses.  It is well-established, however, that matters of witness 
credibility are for the jury to resolve.2  In this case, the record reflects that 
the State presented sufficient evidence from which “any rational trier of 
fact” could have found Jones guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.3  
Accordingly, we reject Jones’ first claim. 
(5) 
Jones’ second arguable issue is that the State violated Rule 16 
when it failed to reveal that it had recovered a bullet and casing from the 
crime scene.  As defense counsel points out, however, Jones’ argument is 
factually inaccurate because counsel received a copy of the ballistics report 
prior to trial and was aware of the evidence in the State’s possession.  
Accordingly, there was no discovery violation.  
(6) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Jones’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Jones’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Jones could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
2 Tyre v. State, 412 A.2d 326, 330 (Del. 1980). 
3 Dixon v. State, 567 A.2d 854, 857 (Del. 1989). 
 
4
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