Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 263, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 21, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ALBERT SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 263, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0401021784 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 8, 2006 
  Decided: June 21, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 21st day of June 2006, 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, Albert Smith (“Smith”), pled guilty to 
Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree, two Firearm 
offenses, and two counts of Conspiracy in the Second Degree.  The Superior 
Court sentenced Smith to a total period of twenty-five years at Level V 
incarceration to be suspended after twenty-one years for probation.  This is 
Smith’s direct appeal. 
 
2 
(2) 
Smith's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Smith's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Smith's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Smith with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Smith also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Smith has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Smith'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 Smith’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 Smith's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Smith 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/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice