Title: Stephenson v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 51, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LEE S. STEPHENSON,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 51, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0901008867 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted:  May 18, 2010 
Decided:  June 28, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 28th day of June 2010, 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) 
On June 12, 2009, the defendant-appellant, Lee S. Stephenson, 
pleaded guilty to Possession with Intent to Deliver Marijuana.  He was 
sentenced to 5 years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for 18 months 
at Level III probation.  On January 5, 2010, Stephenson was found to have 
committed a violation of probation (“VOP”) by failing a drug test.  He was 
re-sentenced to 5 years at Level V, to be suspended for successful 
 
2 
completion of the Level IV Crest Program, to be followed by 18 months of 
Crest Aftercare.  This is Stephenson’s direct appeal of his VOP sentence.   
 
(2) 
 Stephenson’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion 
to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Stephenson’s counsel asserts that, based 
upon a complete and careful examination of the record and the law, there are 
no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, Stephenson’s attorney informed 
him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the 
motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Stephenson also was 
informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Stephenson 
has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has 
responded to the position taken by Stephenson’s counsel and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(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 to 
 
3 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1    
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Stephenson’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issues.  We also are satisfied that Stephenson’s counsel has made 
a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Stephenson 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
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).