No. 513, 1999Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided: June 21, 2000
Family JN98-3941.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
CHRISTOPHER TOWNSEND, Respondent Below-Appellant v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Petitioner Below-Appellee. No. 513, 1999 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 21, 2000
Court Below — Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, File No. JN98-3941.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
ORDER
This 21st day of June 2000, 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 respondent-appellant, Christopher Townsend, was found guilty of robbery in the first degree by a Family Court judge. He was sentenced to 6 months at Ferris School and was ordered to pay $65 restitution to the victim.
(2) Townsend’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 arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.[1]
(3) Townsend’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Townsend’s counsel informed Townsend 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. Townsend was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Townsend did not submit any issues for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Townsend’s counsel as well as the issue raised by Townsend and has moved to affirm the judgment of the Family Court.
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Townsend’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are also satisfied that Townsend’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Townsend 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 Family Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.