Rodriguez v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 406, 2012 Court BelowBSuperior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr. ID No. 1109019942 Submitted: February 25, 2013 Decided: April 26, 2013 Before HOLLAND, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of April 2013, upon consideration of the appellant=s brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney=s motion to withdraw, and the State=s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 9, 2012, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Armando Rodriguez, guilty of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. After a pre-sentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Rodriguez to eight years at Level V suspended after two years for decreasing levels of supervision. This is Rodriguez direct appeal. (2) Rodriguez appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c).1 Rodriguez counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there is no arguably appealable issue. Rodriguez counsel also reports that Rodriguez did not submit any points for the Court s consideration.2 The State moves to affirm the Superior Court judgment. (3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant s counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for any arguable claims.3 The Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of any arguably appealable issue that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.4 (4) In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Rodriguez appeal is wholly without merit and is devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We are satisfied that Rodriguez appellate 1 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit). 2 The record reflects that Rodriguez counsel provided Rodriguez, as required, with a copy of the motion, brief, and appendix, and a letter explaining that Rodriguez had a right to submit written points for the Court s consideration. See id. 3 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 4 See supra note 3. 2 counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Rodriguez could not raise a meritorious claim on 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 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.
