Submitted May 28, 2014
Case Closed August 15, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware in of the State of Delaware in. Cr. ID No. 0508015411.
Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
Henry duPont Ridgely, Justice
This 7th day of August 2014, upon consideration of the appellant's brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On August 17, 2005, the police arrested Roderick Butler and the appellant, Shannon Harris, in connection with a robbery early that morning in New Castle, Delaware. In the indictment that followed, Harris and Butler were charged with Robbery in the First Degree, Attempted Burglary in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, Criminal Mischief, and several weapon offenses. In February 2007, Harris and Butler were jointly tried before a Superior Court jury.
(2) Harris and Butler attended only the first two days of the three-day trial. Midway through the third day of trial and before the jury rendered its verdict, both men voluntarily left the courthouse and did not return. Harris was convicted in absentia of Attempted Burglary in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, Criminal Mischief, and three weapon offenses and was acquitted of the remaining counts in the indictment. Butler was convicted in absentia of one weapon offense and was otherwise acquitted.
(3) Butler was apprehended in March 2007 and was sentenced in August 2008. On direct appeal, the Court affirmed the Superior Court judgment. Harris was apprehended in April 2013 and was sentenced in November 2013 to a total of twenty-nine years at Level V, suspended after twenty-one years, for Level III probation. This is Harris' direct appeal from his conviction and sentencing.
(4) On appeal, Harris' appellate counsel (" Counsel" ) has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (" Rule 26(c)" ) asserting that there are no arguably appealable issues. Harris, through Counsel, has submitted several points for the Court's consideration. The State has responded to Harris' points and has moved to affirm the Superior Court judgment.
(5) 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 arguable claims. The Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at ...