Title: Brannon v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 581, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JEFFREY BRANNON,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 581, 2008 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0709017138 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 17, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 6, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 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) 
After a Superior Court bench trial, the appellant, Jeffrey Brannon, was 
found guilty as charged of one count of Home Improvement Fraud.  Brannon was 
sentenced to two years at Level V suspended for two years at Level II.  This is 
Brannon’s direct appeal. 
 
(2) 
On appeal, Brannon’s defense counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a brief 
and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  The standard and scope of 
review of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is 
 
2
two-fold.  First, the Court must be satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious 
examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the 
appeal.1  Second, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and 
determine whether the appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues 
that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.2 
 
(3) 
Counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination 
of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel states that he 
provided Brannon with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief and appendix and advised Brannon that he had a right to supplement 
Counsel’s presentation.  Brannon did not submit any points for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Counsel and has 
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Brannon’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine 
the record and the law and properly determined that Brannon 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). 
2 Id. 
 
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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice