Title: Brown v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 356, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ANZARA M. BROWN, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 356, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0210016932 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 24, 2006 
  Decided: May 24, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of May 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, Anzara Brown, filed this appeal from 
the sentence imposed by the Superior Court following a contested violation 
of probation hearing.  The Superior Court sentenced Brown to four years at 
Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving three years for 
probation.  This is Brown’s appeal. 
(2) 
Brown's counsel on appeal filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Brown's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
 
-2- 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Brown's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Brown with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Brown also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  The State responded to counsel’s 
brief, as well as Brown’s points, and requested that the judgment of the 
Superior Court be affirmed. 
(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.1 
(4) 
The record in this case reflects that Brown pled guilty in 2002 
to delivery of cocaine and was sentenced to six years at Level V 
incarceration, to be suspended upon successful completion of the Key 
Program for Level IV Crest and Crest Aftercare, followed by probation. 
                                                 
1Penson 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- 
Brown was found in violation of the terms of his probationary sentence in 
August 2004 and again in December 2004. 
 
(5) 
In May 2005, after a confidential police informant purchased 
cocaine from Brown, the police obtained a search warrant for Brown’s 
apartment.  Upon the officers  executing the search warrant, Brown informed 
them that cocaine could be found in a baby’s crib in Brown’s room and 
inside a jacket pocket in his bedroom closet.  The officers subsequently 
recovered a total of 24.2 grams of cocaine.  Brown was arrested on charges 
that included trafficking and possession with intent to deliver, and also was 
charged with violating probation. 
 
(6) 
At the contested VOP hearing, Brown’s counsel requested the 
Superior Court to stay the VOP hearing until the new criminal charges were 
resolved.  The Superior Court denied the request and proceeded to hear 
testimony from a Dover police detective about the drug purchases and the 
execution of the warrant to search Brown’s apartment.  The Superior Court 
found Brown in violation of probation because of his criminal conduct and 
sentenced him to four years at Level V to be suspended after serving three 
years for probation.  
 
 
-4- 
 
(7) 
The gravemen of Brown’s complaint on appeal is that the 
Superior Court erred by not staying the VOP hearing until after the 
adjudication of the new criminal charges.  Brown asserts that, by requiring 
him to defend the VOP charge first, the State denied him the opportunity to 
challenge the validity of the search warrant leading to his arrest and found 
him guilty of violating probation before the underlying charges were proven 
at trial.   
(8) 
Brown suggests by his argument that if the Superior Court in 
the underlying criminal proceedings invalidated the search warrant and 
suppressed any evidence seized as a result, then the suppressed evidence 
would not have been admissible during the VOP proceedings.  This Court, 
however, has never adopted such a rule as a matter of Delaware law.2  
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has specifically held that the 
federal exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction at a parole revocation 
hearing of evidence seized in violation of a parolee’s Fourth Amendment 
rights under the federal Constitution.3 
                                                 
2 See Fuller v. State, 844 A.2d 290, 293 (Del. 2004) (“[W]e do not reach the State’s 
argument that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation 
proceedings.”). 
3 Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364 (1998). 
 
 
-5- 
(9) 
We need not reach this issue in Brown’s case because after this 
Court received supplemental memoranda on appeal, however, Brown’s 
motion to suppress, which challenged the validity of the search warrant in 
the underlying criminal action, was denied.  Thereafter, Brown pled guilty 
on March 21, 2006 to one count of possession with intent to deliver.  
Brown’s subsequent guilty plea to a new criminal charge leads us to 
conclude that his current appeal from the finding of a probation violation, 
arising from the same criminal conduct to which he pled guilty, is wholly 
without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
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