Gibbs v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ARSON I. GIBBS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 555, 2005 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County Cr. ID 0404009981 Submitted: June 5, 2006 Decided: July 17, 2006 Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. CORRECTED ORDER This 17th day of July 2006, 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, Arson Gibbs (Gibbs), was found guilty of six counts of second degree forgery and related charges following a bench trial in the Superior Court. The Superior Court sentenced Gibbs as an habitual offender to a total period of ten years at Level V incarceration to be followed by probation. This is Gibbs direct appeal. (2) Gibbs' counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Gibbs' counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Gibbs' attorney informed him of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Gibbs with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Gibbs also was informed of his right to supplement his attorney's presentation. Gibbs has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Gibbs' 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 Gibbs appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Gibbs' counsel has made a * 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 conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Gibbs 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/ 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.
