IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DONTAY J. HARRIS, §
§ No. 17, 2014
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware in and
v. § for New Castle County
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § Cr. ID No. 1111019754
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 19, 2014
Decided: July 16, 2014
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 16th day of July 2014, upon careful consideration of the appellant’s
brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the
State’s response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On May 22, 2012, the appellant, Dontay J. Harris, pled guilty to
Assault in the First Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a
Felony, and Conspiracy in the Second Degree. On July 12, 2012, after a
presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Harris to a total of fifteen
years at Level V suspended after eight years for decreasing levels of supervision.
(2) On February 21, 2013, Harris filed a pro se motion for postconviction
relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 (“Rule 61”). The motion was
referred to a Superior Court Commissioner who appointed counsel to represent
Harris. Under the Commissioner’s brief schedule, Harris’ appointed counsel filed
an amended motion for postconviction relief, Harris’ trial counsel filed an affidavit
responding to allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the State filed a
response.
(3) By report and recommendation dated November 22, 2013, the
Commissioner recommended that Harris’ motion for postconviction relief be
denied. After de novo review, the Superior Court issued an order dated December
13, 2013 that denied the motion. This is Harris’ appeal from the denial of his
motion for postconviction relief.
(4) On appeal, Harris’ appointed counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a brief and
a motion to withdraw under to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).1 Counsel asserts that,
based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. Counsel also reports that Harris did not submit any points for
the Court’s consideration. The State has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment.
(5) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief
under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made
1
See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing appeals without merit).
2
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.2 The
Court must also 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.3
(6) In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has
concluded that Harris’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue. We are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to
examine the record and the law and properly determined that Harris could not raise
a meritorious claim on 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
2
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
Id.
3