Title: Matthews v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 11, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 26, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TYQUAN MATTHEWS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 11, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 1207018108  
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: July 13, 2015 
  Decided: August 26, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of August 2015, 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, Tyquan Matthews, pled guilty on 
April 4, 2013 to multiple criminal offenses, including Robbery in the First 
Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and 
related charges.  The Superior Court sentenced Matthews on these charges to 
a total period of forty-one years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended 
after serving thirteen years in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.  
Matthews filed a motion for postconviction relief on November 12, 2013 
2 
 
and an amended motion on June 27, 2014, alleging ineffective assistance of 
counsel.  After receiving responses from Matthews’ trial counsel and from 
the State, the Superior Court held a hearing.  At the conclusion of the 
hearing, the Superior Court stated that it found Matthews’ trial counsel more 
credible than Matthews and his witnesses and thus denied Matthews’ motion 
for postconviction relief.   This is Matthews’ appeal from that ruling. 
(2) 
Matthews’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Matthews’ counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Matthews’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Matthews with a copy of the motion 
to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Matthews also was informed of 
his right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Matthews has not raised 
any issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Matthews’ 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 
3 
 
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 Matthews’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Matthews’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Matthews 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
*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).