IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ROBERT W. CONAWAY, §
§ No. 459, 2014
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for Sussex County
§ Cr. ID 1403003136A
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: March 13, 2015
Decided: March 30, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 30th day of March 2015, 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) The defendant-appellant, Robert Conaway (“Conaway”), pled
guilty as a habitual offender on August 6, 2014 to one count each of
Burglary in the Second Degree, Possession of a Firearm by a Person
Prohibited, Theft of a Firearm, and Burglary in the Third Degree. The
Superior Court immediately sentenced Conaway to a total period of twenty-
two years at Level V incarceration, with credit time previously served, to be
suspended after serving eight years in prison for decreasing levels of
supervision. This is Conaway’s direct appeal.
(2) Conaway’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw under Rule 26(c). Conaway’s counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. By letter, Conaway’s attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Conaway with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief. Conaway also was informed of his
right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Conaway has not raised any
issues for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the position
taken by Conaway’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 and
2
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.*
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Conaway’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Conaway’s counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Conaway 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
*
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