Title: Malandruccolo v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 343, 2017
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 17, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAWRENCE MALANDRUCCOLO, § 
§ 
No. 343, 2017 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court of the    
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
State of Delaware   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
§ 
Cr. ID No. 1608024088 (N)  
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: March 8, 2018      
Decided: 
May 17, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
The appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the 
Superior Court record reflect that: 
(1) 
On May 2, 2017, a Superior Court Judge found the appellant, Lawrence 
Malandruccolo, guilty of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited, Attempted 
Shoplifting, and Conspiracy Third Degree.  Malandruccolo was sentenced, effective 
August 30, 2016, to a total of seventeen years of Level V incarceration, suspended 
after five years for ten years of Level IV supervision, suspended after six months for 
probation.  This is Malandruccolo’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, Malandruccolo’s trial counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a brief 
and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, 
2 
 
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  Counsel informed Malandruccolo of the provisions of Rule 26(c) 
and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying 
brief.  Counsel also informed Malandruccolo of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Malandruccolo has not submitted any 
points for our consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(3) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
under Rule 26(c), we must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1   Also, we 
must conduct our own review of the record and determine “whether the appeal is 
indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”2 
(4) 
In this case, we have reviewed the record carefully and concluded that 
Malandruccolo’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and the law and properly determined that Malandruccolo could 
not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                
1 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). 
2 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81.  
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice