Title: Cooper v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 227, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 22, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOSEPH T. COOPER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 227, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID 1510000403 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 16, 2016 
  Decided: September 22, 2016 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of September 2016, 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) 
In April 2016, the defendant-appellant, Joseph Cooper, pled 
guilty to misdemeanor Theft and misdemeanor Selling Stolen Property.  The 
Superior Court immediately sentenced Cooper to two years at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended after serving one year in prison and 
successful completion of drug treatment for a period of probation.  This is 
Cooper’s direct appeal. 
2 
 
(2) 
Cooper’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Rule 26(c).  Cooper’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Cooper’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Cooper with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Cooper also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Cooper has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Cooper’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) 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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Cooper’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
                                                 
*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 
 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Cooper’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Cooper 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/   James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice