IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ADRIENNE DORMAN, §
§ No. 29, 2017
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1603014059 (N)
§
Plaintiff Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 6, 2017
Decided: June 15, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 15th day of June 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme
Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to the
Court that:
(1) In May 2016, a New Castle County grand jury indicted the appellant,
Adrienne Dorman, for two counts of Aggravated Menacing, four counts of
Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and one count each of Possession of a Firearm
During the Commission of a Felony, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the
Commission of a Felony, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, Offensive
Touching, and Criminal Mischief. On January 4, 2017, Dorman pled guilty to one
count each of Aggravated Menacing, Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the
Commission of a Felony, and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The State
agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, dismiss a pending Court of Common
Pleas case against Dorman, and the discharge of another Court of Common Pleas
case as unimproved.
(2) The Superior Court sentenced Dorman as follows: (i) for Possession
of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a Felony, twenty-five years of
Level V incarceration, with credit for three days previously served, suspended after
two years; (ii) for Aggravated Menacing, five years of Level V incarceration,
suspended for two years of Level III supervision; and (iii) for Endangering the
Welfare of a Child, one year of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of
Level III supervision. This is Dorman’s direct appeal.
(3) On appeal, Dorman’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion
to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable
issues. Counsel informed Dorman of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided
Dorman with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.
(4) Counsel also informed Dorman of her right to identify any points she
wished this Court to consider on appeal. Dorman has not raised any issues for this
Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has
moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.
2
(5) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii)
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
(6) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Dorman’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable
issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to
examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Dorman could
not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).
3