McNeill v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRUCE McNEILL, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 1, 2003 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County Cr.A. No. VN01-01-1248-01 Submitted: June 13, 2003 Decided: July 18, 2003 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices ORDER This 18th day of July 2003, upon consideration of the appellant s brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney s motion to withdraw, and the State s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendant-appellant, Bruce McNeill, was found to be in violation of probation ( VOP ) and was sentenced to one-year incarceration at Level V, to be suspended for decreasing levels of probation. This is McNeill s direct appeal of his VOP sentence. (2) McNeill s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c). 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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal; and (b) the 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.1 (3) McNeill s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. By letter, McNeill s counsel informed McNeill of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and the complete hearing transcript. McNeill was also informed of his right to supplement his attorney s presentation. McNeill has not raised any issues for this Court s consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by McNeill s counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court s judgment. (4) This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that McNeill s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We also are satisfied that McNeill s counsel has made a 1 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). 2 conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly determined that McNeill 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. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
