Title: Swanson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 248, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARVIN SWANSON,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 248, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. No. IN00-02-0191 and
§  -0194
§
Submitted: October 18, 2001
  Decided:
October 31, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 31st day of October 2001, 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)
The defendant-appellant, Marvin Swanson, was convicted,
following a Superior Court bench trial, of possession with intent to deliver
cocaine and tampering with physical evidence.  The Superior Court
sentenced Swanson on both charges to a total of nine years at Level V
incarceration, suspended after five years for decreasing levels of supervision.
At trial, Swanson’s defense was mistaken identity.  This is Swanson’s direct
appeal.
-2-
(2)
Swanson's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Swanson's counsel asserts that, based
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues.  By letter, Swanson's attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Swanson with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Swanson also was informed of his
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Swanson has not raised any
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position
taken by Swanson's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's
decision.
(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.*
                                                
*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)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Swanson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Swanson's counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Swanson 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/Joseph T. Walsh
     Justice