Title: Reid v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHELE REID, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 116, 2007 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  Cr. ID 0511019405 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 8, 2007 
  Decided: July 3, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 3rd day of July 2007, 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, Michele Reid (Reid), appealed to the 
Superior Court following a bench trial in the Court of Common Pleas and 
her resulting conviction on charges of driving under the influence and 
driving on the wrong side of the road.  The Superior Court affirmed Reid’s 
conviction and sentence.  This is Reid’s appeal from that order. 
(2) 
Reid's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Reid's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Reid's attorney informed her of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Reid with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Reid also was informed of her right to supplement 
her attorney's presentation.  Reid has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Reid'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.* 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Reid’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Reid's counsel has made a 
                                                 
*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
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Reid 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice