IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RENALDO ALVAREZ, § § No. 293, 2024 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 2109007538 (N) § Appellee. § § Submitted: January 10, 2025 Decided: February 13, 2025 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) In July 2024, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Renaldo Alvarez, guilty of disregarding a police signal, reckless driving, unsafe speed, and turning without a signal. The Superior Court sentenced Alvarez to two years and thirty days of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level III probation.

This is Alvarez’s direct appeal.

(2) On appeal, Alvarez’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 Alvarez 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 Alvarez of his right to identify any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal. Alvarez 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 Alvarez’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 Alvarez could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal.

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

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