Sammons v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ADRIENNE SAMMONS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 302, 2013 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID 1205024383 Submitted: October 14, 2013 Decided: October 18, 2013 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 18th day of October 2013, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, her attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Adrienne Sammons, of one count each of first degree robbery and second degree assault in connection with a purse snatching that left the elderly victim with a broken hip. The Superior Court sentenced Sammons to a total period of thirty-three years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving thirteen years for decreasing levels of supervision. Sammons direct appeal. This is (2) Sammons counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Sammons counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Sammons attorney informed her of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Sammons with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Sammons also was informed of her right to supplement her attorney's presentation. Sammons has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Sammons 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 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 Sammons appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably * 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 appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Sammons counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Sammons 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/ Myron T. Steele Chief Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
