Title: Petty v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 506, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEVAL E. PETTY,  
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
                     Plaintiff Below, 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 506, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, in and 
§  for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 1009000052 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                     
Submitted:  May 22, 2012 
 
Decided:  
June 1, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 1st day of June 2012, 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, Leval E. Petty, was found guilty by a 
Superior Court jury of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree.  He was 
sentenced as an habitual offender1 to 3 years at Level V Key Program, to be 
followed by 1 year at Level IV Crest, to be suspended upon successful 
                                                 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4214(a). 
 
2
completion of Crest for 1 year at Crest Aftercare.2  This is Petty’s direct 
appeal. 
 
(2) Petty’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 in order to determine whether the appeal is so 
totally devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided 
without an adversary presentation.3 
 
(3) Petty’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Petty’s counsel informed Petty of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete trial transcript.  Petty also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Petty has 
                                                 
2 The State has filed an appeal from this sentence in No. 499, 2011. 
3 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
not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.4  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Petty’s counsel as well as the issues 
raised by Petty and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Petty’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Petty’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Petty 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  
 
                                                 
4 Petty supplied his attorney with a handwritten letter containing a discussion of the 
State’s appeal of his sentence, but no discussion of issues relating to his conviction.