Poore v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARVIN POORE, §
§ No. 263, 2021
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, §
§ Court Below–Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID Nos. 1911006147 (K)
Plaintiff Below, § 1911006225 (K)
Appellee. § 1911006036 (K)
Submitted: January 13, 2022
Decided: March 8, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court
Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the State’s response, and the record
on appeal, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 29, 2021, the appellant, Marvin Poore, resolved five sets of
criminal charges by pleading guilty to two counts of second-degree burglary, one
count of attempted second-degree burglary, and one count of third-degree burglary.
Following a presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Poore to an
aggregate of eighteen years of imprisonment followed by decreasing levels of
supervision. This is Poore’s direct appeal.
(2) Poore’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw
under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, after a conscientious review of the entire
record and the law, she has concluded that this appeal is wholly without merit.
Poore’s attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Poore
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also
informed Poore of his right to supplement his attorney’s presentation. Poore has not
raised any issues for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the
position taken by Poore’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. First,
the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious
examination of the record and the law for claims that could be arguably be raised on
appeal. 1 Second, 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.2
1
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429, 442
(1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2
Penson, 488 U.S. at 81-82.
2
(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that
Poore’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues.
We also are satisfied that Poore’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine
the record and the law and has properly determined that Poore could not raise a
meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3