Limberry v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 16, 2024
• Docket: 160, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AARON LIMBERRY, § § No. 160, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2104000149 (N) § Appellee. § §

Submitted: September 16, 2024 Decided: October 16, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, 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) In January 2024, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Aaron

Limberry, guilty of first-degree assault and possession of a deadly weapon during

the commission of a felony. The Superior Court sentenced Limberry to fifty years

of Level V incarceration, suspended after five years for decreasing levels of

supervision. This is Limberry’s direct appeal.

(2) On appeal, Limberry’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion

to withdraw under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel

informed Limberry of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of

the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.

(3) Counsel also informed Limberry of his right to identify any points he

wished this Court to consider on appeal. Limberry has not provided points for this

Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

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

under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a

conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii)

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.1

(5) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that

Limberry’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable

issue. We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine

the record and the law and has properly determined that Limberry could not raise a

meritorious claim on appeal.

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996).

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

Court be AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice