Case Title: McNeil v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 687, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NAESEAN McNEIL, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  687, 2015 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below–Superior Court of   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware   
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
§ 
Cr. ID Nos. 1501010451B  
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
1501010451A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: June 14, 2016 
Decided: 
July 21, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.  
 
ORDER 
 
This 21st day of July 2016, having considered the no-merit brief and motion 
to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the 
State’s response, and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Naesean McNeil, was indicted in February 2015 on 
charges of Possession of a Firearm by a Person Prohibited (“PFABPP”), 
Possession of Ammunition by a Person Prohibited (“PABPP”), Carrying a 
Concealed Deadly Weapon (“CCDW”), and Resisting Arrest.  On September 1, 
2015, the PFBPP and PABPP charges were severed, and a jury trial was held on 
the charges of CCDW and Resisting Arrest.  The jury found McNeil guilty of 
Resisting Arrest and not guilty of CCDW.  McNeil then waived his right to a jury 
2 
 
trial on the remaining charges.  After a bench trial, the Superior Court found 
McNeil guilty of PABPP and not guilty of PFBPP.  On November 20, 2015, the 
Superior Court sentenced McNeil to a total of nine years at Level V incarceration, 
eight years for PABPP and one year for Resisting Arrest, suspended for eighteen 
months at Level III probation and one year at Level II probation served 
concurrently.  This is McNeil’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
On appeal, McNeil’s trial counsel (“Counsel”) has filed a no-merit 
brief and a motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts 
that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues. 
(3) 
Counsel informed McNeil of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief 
and appendix in draft form.  Counsel also informed McNeil of his right to identify 
any points he wished this Court to consider on appeal.  McNeil has not raised any 
issues for the 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), the Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 
3 
 
a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1   Also, 
the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine “whether the 
appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 
presentation.”2 
(5) 
In this case, having conducted “a full examination of all the 
proceedings” and having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal,”3 the Court 
concludes that McNeil’s appeal “is wholly without merit.”4     The Court is 
satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
law and properly determined that McNeil could not raise a meritorious claim on 
appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
  
  
Justice 
  
                                
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 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81.  
3 Id. at 80. 
4  Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c).