Kincaid v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: November 28, 2023
• Docket: 211, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JESSE KINCAID, § § Defendant Below, § No. 211, 2023 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID Nos. N2210002346 § N2203013888 Appellee. §

Submitted: October 24, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On February 27, 2023, the appellant, Jesse Kincaid, resolved charges

in multiple cases by pleading guilty to stalking, noncompliance with bond

conditions, and criminal contempt of a domestic violence protective order. In

exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss multiple other charges and

to cap its sentencing recommendation at three years of unsuspended Level V time.

On May 19, 2023, the Superior Court sentenced Kincaid to a total of six years of incarceration, suspended after two years for decreasing levels of supervision. This

is Kincaid’s direct appeal.

(2) On appeal, Kincaid’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw

under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Kincaid’s counsel asserts that, based upon a

conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit.

In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Kincaid

of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to

withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Kincaid of his right

to submit points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Kincaid has not

submitted any points for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the

Rule 26(c) brief and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed.

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief

under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 This

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary

presentation.”2

1 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). 2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82.

2 (4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the

appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and

the law and properly determined that Kincaid could not raise a meritorious claim on

appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice