Title: Austin v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 705, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 30, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN W. AUSTIN,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below, 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 705, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1102020008 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted:  May 17, 2012 
 
Decided:   May 30, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 30th day of May 2012, 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, John W. Austin, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Robbery in the First Degree and Possession of a 
Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony.  On the robbery 
conviction, he was sentenced to 15 years of Level V incarceration, to be 
suspended after 5 years for decreasing levels of supervision.  On the weapon 
conviction, he was sentenced to 3 years at Level V.  This is Austin’s direct 
appeal. 
 
2
 
(2) Austin’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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 claims 
that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) the Court must conduct its 
own review of the record in order to determine whether the appeal is so 
totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided 
without an adversary presentation.1 
 
(3) Austin’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Austin’s counsel informed Austin of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Austin also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Austin 
responded with a brief that raises several issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Austin’s 
counsel as well as the issues raised by Austin and has moved to affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
                                                 
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). 
 
3
 
(4) Austin raises several issues for this Court’s consideration, which 
may fairly be summarized as follows.  He claims first that his trial counsel 
provided ineffective assistance by failing to (a) contact certain witnesses; (b) 
adequately cross-examine the victim regarding her identification of him as 
the robber; (c) adequately cross-examine the police officers; (d) utilize the 
relevant phone records; (e) adequately cross-examine a witness who 
identified him from a videotape; and (f) obtain videotape evidence from a 
store he claims to have visited at the time of the robbery.  Austin also claims 
that the witness who identified him from the videotape was not credible.   
 
(5) Austin’s first claim is that his trial attorney provided ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  It is well-settled that this Court does not entertain 
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are raised for the first time on 
direct appeal.2  Absent a full adjudication of any such claim by the Superior 
Court, there is no adequate record for this Court to review.3  Because 
Austin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not raised below, we   
decline to address it for the first time in this proceeding. 
 
(6) Austin’s second claim is that the witness who identified him from 
the videotape was not credible.  This Court will not substitute its judgment 
                                                 
2 Collins v. State, 420 A.2d 170, 177 (Del. 1980). 
3 Wright v. State, 513 A.2d 1310, 1315 (Del. 1986). 
 
4
for that of the jury on issues of witness credibility.4  It is the sole province of 
the jury to determine witness credibility, resolve any conflicts in the 
testimony and draw any inferences from the proven facts.5  We, therefore, 
conclude that Austin’s second claim is without merit.   
 
(7) This Court has carefully reviewed the record and concluded that 
Austin’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Austin’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Austin 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       
 
                                                 
4 Poon v. State, 880 A.2d 236, 238 (Del. 2005). 
5 Chao v. State, 604 A.2d 1351, 1363 (Del. 1992) (overruled on other grounds by 
Williams v. State, 818 A.2d 906 (Del. 2002)).