Title: Harris v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 497, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 12, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
COREY O. HARRIS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 497, 2003 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in and 
v. 
§ 
for Sussex County, in Cr. A.  
§ 
Nos. S03-02-0084I, 0085I, 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
0087I, 0088I. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
Def. ID No. 0301015849 
 
Submitted: February 11, 2004 
Decided: 
April      12, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of April 2004, 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) 
In July 2003, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
Corey O. Harris, of two counts of Possession of a Firearm During the 
Commission of a Felony and two counts of Aggravated Menacing.  Harris 
was sentenced to a total of ten years at Level V incarceration, suspended 
after six years for six months at Level IV work release, followed by eighteen 
months at Level III and one year at Level II supervision.  This is Harris’ 
direct appeal. 
 
2
(2) 
Harris’ counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  In her Rule 26(c)(ii) statement, Harris’ counsel 
represents that she conducted a conscientious review of the record and 
concluded that there are no meritorious issues upon which to base an appeal.  
Moreover, Harris’ counsel informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying 
brief and the trial transcript.  Counsel informed Harris of his right to 
supplement the presentation; however, Harris did not respond with any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Harris’ 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.  First, the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims.  Second, 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.* 
                                          
 
* 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) 
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Harris’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Harris’ counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Harris 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