Title: Boyce v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 638, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 14, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES A. BOYCE,  
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE,  
 
          Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 638, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID No. 0911001541 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 12, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 14, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of June 2011, 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, James A. Boyce, was found guilty by 
a Superior Court jury of Disregarding a Police Officer’s Signal, Driving the 
Wrong Way on a One Way Street and Resisting Arrest.1  He was sentenced 
to a total of 2 years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended for 2 years at 
Level IV Work Release, in turn to be suspended after 6 months.  Boyce also 
was assessed fines.  This is Boyce’s direct appeal. 
                                                 
1 The misdemeanor charge of Resisting Arrest was later dismissed by the State. 
 
2
 
(2) 
Boyce’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Boyce’s counsel asserts that, based upon a complete 
and careful examination of the record and the law, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Boyce’s attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Boyce also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Boyce has not raised any issues 
for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken 
by Boyce’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.2 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Boyce’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Boyce’s counsel has made a 
                                                 
2 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 Boyce 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