Title: Smith v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 624, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RALPH SMITH, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 624, 2002 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr.A. Nos. IK02-07-0181, -0182 
§  -0186, and –0187 
§  Cr. ID 0201008740 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 1, 2003 
  Decided: May 12, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 12th day of May 2003, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On the third day of his Superior Court jury trial, the defendant-
appellant, Ralph Smith, pled guilty to four of the ten charges against him, 
including two counts of first degree vehicular assault, DUI, and driving 
during suspension/revocation.  The Superior Court sentenced Smith on 
October 31, 2002 to a total period of three years and four months at Level V 
incarceration, to be followed by one year at Level IV work release and four 
 
2
years and one month of decreasing levels of probation.  This is Smith’s 
direct appeal. 
(2) 
Smith's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Smith's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Smith's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Smith with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Smith also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Smith has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Smith's 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision. 
(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:  (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel 
has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable 
claims; and (b) 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) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Smith’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Smith's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Smith 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/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice