Staats v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 3, 2025
• Docket: 251, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DARREN STAATS, § § No. 251, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 2308015660 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: January 3, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Rule 26(c), his

attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court concludes that:

(1) In December 2023, a grand jury charged the appellant, Darren Staats,

with possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (“PFBPP”) and possession of

ammunition by a person prohibited (“PABPP”). On June 3, 2024, Staats pleaded

guilty to PFBPP. As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed to recommend a

sentence of fifteen years of Level V incarceration, suspended after the ten-year

minimum for eighteen months of Level III probation with GPS monitoring. The

Superior Court accepted Staats’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended

sentence. This appeal followed. (2) On appeal, Staats’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to

withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, based upon a

complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable

issues. Counsel informed Staats of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Staats

with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.

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

wished this Court to consider on appeal. Staats has not submitted any points for this

Court’s consideration.

(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) Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Staats’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 Staats could not raise a meritorious claim in this 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 is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice