Title: Oney v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 256, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EARL F. ONEY, JR., 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 256, 2002 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
§ 
for Sussex County in Cr. ID  
§ 
Nos. 0112002428  
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
0111007315  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 26, 2002 
Decided: 
October 10, 2002 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 10th day of October 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
brief 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) 
In December 2001, the appellant, Earl F. Oney, Jr., was charged 
by Information with Robbery in the Second Degree, Theft under $1000, 
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and several traffic violations, including 
Failure to Stop at the Command of a Police Officer.  In January 2002, Oney 
was indicted on charges of Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the 
Second Degree.  On March 18, 2002, Oney pleaded guilty to Robbery in the 
 
2
First Degree, Assault in the Third Degree, Robbery in the Second Degree 
and Failure to Stop at the Command of a Police Officer.  After a presentence 
investigation, Oney was sentenced to seventeen years and six months at 
Level V, suspended after four years, for one year at Level IV Residential 
Substance Abuse Treatment Program, suspended upon successful 
completion of the Level IV program, for six years at Level III Aftercare, 
followed by five years at Level III and one and one-half years at Level III to 
be served concurrently.  This is Oney’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, Oney’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a 
motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Oney’s counsel 
asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, 
there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Oney’s counsel informed 
Oney of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Oney with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw, the Rule 26(c) brief and the Superior Court transcript.  
Counsel also informed Oney of his right to supplement counsel’s 
presentation.  Oney did not submit any issues to his counsel for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Oney’s 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
3
(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.  First, 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.  Second, the 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) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Oney’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Oney’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Oney 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). 
 
4
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