Matthews v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TYQUAN MATTHEWS, §
§
Defendant Below- § No. 11, 2015
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
STATE OF DELAWARE, § in and for Sussex County
§ Cr. ID 1207018108
Plaintiff Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 13, 2015
Decided: August 26, 2015
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 26th day of August 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, Tyquan Matthews, pled guilty on
April 4, 2013 to multiple criminal offenses, including Robbery in the First
Degree, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and
related charges. The Superior Court sentenced Matthews on these charges to
a total period of forty-one years at Level V imprisonment, to be suspended
after serving thirteen years in prison for decreasing levels of supervision.
Matthews filed a motion for postconviction relief on November 12, 2013
and an amended motion on June 27, 2014, alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel. After receiving responses from Matthews’ trial counsel and from
the State, the Superior Court held a hearing. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the Superior Court stated that it found Matthews’ trial counsel more
credible than Matthews and his witnesses and thus denied Matthews’ motion
for postconviction relief. This is Matthews’ appeal from that ruling.
(2) Matthews’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Matthews’ counsel asserts that, based
upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably
appealable issues. By letter, Matthews’ attorney informed him of the
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Matthews with a copy of the motion
to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Matthews also was informed of
his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Matthews has not raised
any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the
position taken by Matthews’ 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
2
claims; and (b) this 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. *
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded
that Matthews’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably
appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Matthews’ counsel has made a
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly
determined that Matthews 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/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
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