Title: Bingham v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 103, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANDREW BINGHAM,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 103, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 1102007972  
§                     1011021174 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 2, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  August 29, 2013 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of August 2013, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Andrew Bingham, pleaded guilty to 2 
counts of Robbery in the First Degree, 2 counts of Possession of a Firearm 
During the Commission of a Felony, and 1 count of Assault in the Second 
Degree.  He was sentenced on each of the robbery convictions to 25 years of 
Level V incarceration, to be suspended after 15 years, with no probation to 
follow.  On each of the firearm convictions, he was sentenced to 10 years at 
Level V, with no probation to follow.  On the assault conviction, he was 
 
2
sentenced to 8 years at Level V, to be suspended for 3 years at Level IV, in 
turn to be suspended after 6 months for 2 years of Level III probation. 
 
(2) 
Bingham’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Bingham’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, Bingham’s attorney informed him of 
the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Bingham also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Bingham has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Bingham’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 
 
3
to determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.* 
 
(4) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Bingham’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Bingham’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Bingham 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice 
 
                                                 
* 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).