RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice
O R D E R
This 2nd day of December 1999, upon consideration of the appellant's Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, her attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The defendant-appellant, Billie Hetrick, was convicted by a Superior Court jury of first degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony for shooting her former paramour. Hetrick was sentenced to life in prison. At trial, Hetrick did not contest shooting the victim. Her defense was that she was operating under extreme emotional distress at the time of the shooting. This is her direct appeal.
(2) Hetrick's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). Hetrick's counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, Hetrick's attorney informed her of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Hetrick with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Hetrick also was informed of her right to supplement her attorney's presentation. Hetrick has not raised any issues for this Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Hetrick's counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's decision.
(3) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a) this Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (b) this Court must 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.
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
(4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that Hetrick's appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that Hetrick's counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Hetrick could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.