Title: Weaver v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 5, 2007
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 18, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
GREGORY B. WEAVER, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 5, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below-Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0501015369 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 29, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 18, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of July 2007, 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, Gregory B. Weaver, pleaded guilty to 
Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.  He was 
sentenced to Level IV Crest and probation.  Upon completing the Crest 
program, Weaver was discharged from his probationary sentence in 
connection with his cocaine possession conviction.  Weaver subsequently 
was found to have committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) in 
connection with his sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia.  At a 
 
2
VOP hearing, Weaver admitted the VOP.  This is Weaver’s direct appeal of 
his VOP conviction and sentence. 
 
(2) 
Weaver’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 arguably could 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 arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without 
an adversary presentation.1 
 
(3) 
Weaver’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and 
complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  
By letter, Weaver’s counsel informed Weaver of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and the complete hearing transcript.  Weaver also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Weaver 
responded with a brief that raises three issues for this Court’s consideration.  
The State has responded to the position taken by Weaver’s counsel as well 
                                                 
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). 
 
3
as the issues raised by Weaver and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
 
(4) 
Weaver raises three issues for this Court’s consideration.  He 
claims that a) he is a depressive and was not given the appropriate 
medication when he was released from Level V to probation; b) his hepatitis 
C was not properly treated while he was at Level V and, therefore, he should 
not be on probation; and c) he should be discharged from probation because 
it is not helping him re-adjust to society. 
 
(5) 
The transcript of the VOP hearing reflects the following.  
Weaver was represented by counsel.  Weaver’s counsel informed the 
Superior Court judge at the beginning of the hearing that, while Weaver 
denied that a bottle of liquor found in the refrigerator where he was living 
belonged to him, he admitted that he had committed a VOP by using 
cocaine.  The judge noted that Weaver had committed multiple probation 
violations and sentenced him to fifteen months at Level V, to be suspended 
upon successful completion of the Tempo Program for nine months at Level 
III Aftercare.  Weaver also was to continue mental health counseling and 
treatment.    
 
(6) 
There is no basis for an appeal in this case.  The VOP hearing 
transcript clearly reflects that Weaver admitted to committing a VOP.  There 
 
4
is no evidence that Weaver was subjected to any coercion, that his attorney 
was ineffective or that his sentence is illegal.  Weaver’s claims bear no 
relationship to the VOP hearing itself.  To the extent that Weaver seeks a 
modification of his VOP sentence, that issue must be presented to the 
Superior Court in the first instance.   
 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Weaver’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Weaver’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that 
Weaver 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/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice