Title: Choury v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 79, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDRE CHOURY,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 79, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1005007197  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: July 14, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: August 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of August 2011, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to 
withdraw, and the State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Andre Choury, pleaded guilty to Kidnapping 
in the Second Degree and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a 
Felony.  He was sentenced on the first conviction to 15 years incarceration at Level 
V, to be suspended for 15 years at Level IV Halfway House, in turn to be 
suspended after 6 months for 3 months at Level IV Home Confinement followed 
by 2 years at Level III probation.  On the second conviction, he was sentenced to 5 
years at Level V. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Choury’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant 
to Rule 26(c).  Choury’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Choury’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Choury with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief.  Choury also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s 
presentation.  Choury has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The 
State has responded to the position taken by Choury’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 Rule 26(c) is twofold:  a) the 
Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination 
of the record and the law for arguable claims; and b) the Court must conduct its 
own review of the record in order to 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 
Choury’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Choury’s counsel has made a conscientious effort 
                                                 
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
to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Choury 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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice