Title: Bartsch v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 722, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HANK W. BARTSCH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 722, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0903015740 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: March 9, 2011 
Decided:  March 28, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 28th day of March 2011, 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, Hank Bartsch, filed this appeal 
following his sentencing for a violation of probation.  Bartsch’s counsel on 
appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  
Bartsch’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By 
letter, Bartsch’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided Bartsch with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
2 
 
accompanying brief.  Bartsch also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Bartsch has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Bartsch’s 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment. 
(2) 
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.* 
(3) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Bartsch’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Bartsch’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Bartsch could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                                 
*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 
 
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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice