Case Title: Hanif v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 293, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAMIR A. HANIF,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 293, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID Nos. 0709019777 
§                      0404013676 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 19, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 26, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 26th day of October 2009, 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, Shamir A. Hanif, was found to have 
committed violations of probation (“VOPs”) in connection with his 2004 
and 2007 convictions of Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”).  On the first 
VOP, he was sentenced to 18 months at Level V, to be suspended for 1 year 
at the Crest Program, with the balance of his Level V sentence to be 
suspended upon successful completion of the program.  On the second VOP, 
he was sentenced to 4 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 18 
 
2 
months at Crest Aftercare.  This is Hanif’s direct appeal of his VOP 
sentences. 
 
(2) 
Hanif’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Hanif’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete 
and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  By letter, Hanif’s attorney informed Hanif of the provisions of Rule 
26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the 
accompanying brief.  Hanif also was informed of his right to supplement his 
attorney’s presentation.  Hanif has not raised any issues for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Hanif’s 
counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(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.1    
                                                 
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). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hanif’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Hanif’s counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Hanif 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/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice