Rhodes v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAROD RHODES, §
§ No. 149, 2016
Defendant Below- §
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below: Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§ Cr. ID 0803035910
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 9, 2016
Decided: September 19, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 19th day of September 2016, 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) In September 2008, the defendant-appellant, Jarod Rhodes, pled
guilty to two counts of Maintaining a Vehicle for Keeping Controlled
Substances and one count each of Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession with
Intent to Deliver, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Since his guilty
plea and sentencing, Rhodes has filed several unsuccessful motions for
modification of sentence and one unsuccessful motion for postconviction
relief. On April 19, 2016, the Superior Court denied Rhodes’ latest motion,
which sought to modify his consecutive sentences so that they would run
concurrently. This appeal followed.
(2) Rhodes’s counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw under Rule 26(c). Rhodes’s counsel asserts that, based upon a
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. By letter, Rhodes’s attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Rhodes with a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the accompanying brief. Rhodes also was informed of his
right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Rhodes has not raised any
issues for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the position
taken by Rhodes’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.1
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Rhodes’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue. The argument raised in Rhodes’s motion for modification
of sentence is foreclosed by this Court’s recent decision in Fountain v.
State.2 We also are satisfied that Rhodes’s counsel has made a conscientious
effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that
Rhodes 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/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
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).
2
Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 2016).
3