Title: Barnhart v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 677, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 8, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JERMAINE L. BARNHART,
Defendant Below-
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 677, 2002
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  Cr.A. No. IN01-07-1280
§
§
Submitted: March 21, 2003
  Decided:   April 8, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 8th day of April 2003, 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)
The defendant-appellant, Jermaine L. Barnhart, was convicted by
a Superior Court jury of one count of Assault in a Detention Facility.  He was
sentenced to 8 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 7½ years
for 6 months of decreasing levels of probation.  This is Barnhart’s direct appeal.
(2)
The evidence at trial established that, on June 20, 2001, Barnhart
was serving a sentence at the Delaware Correctional Center.  On that day,
-2-
Barnhart was on “strip cell status,” meaning that he was not allowed to have
anything in his cell with him, except for a mattress, blanket and pillow between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.  At 6:00 a.m., Sergeant Jack Evans,
accompanied by several other guards, went to Barnhart’s cell to remove the
bedding.  Barnhart turned over the bedding to the guards, but appeared to have
contraband in his underwear.  In order to investigate, Evans told Barnhart to
come to the cell door to be handcuffed prior to the officers entering the cell.
After coming to the cell door, Barnhart punched Evans through the bars of the
cell, giving him a bloody nose and a cut lip.
(3)
Barnhart’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) 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; and (b) the Court must conduct its own review of
the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least
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-
arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary
presentation.1
(4)
Barnhart’s counsel asserts that, based upon  a complete and careful
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter,
Barnhart’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided
Barnhart with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
Barnhart was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s
presentation.  Barnhart has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.
The State has responded to the position taken by Barnhart’s counsel and has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s decision.
(5)
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Barnhart’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue.  We are also satisfied that Barnhart’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Barnhart could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
-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/ Carolyn Berger
Justice