Title: Bowers v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 209, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 19, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
COREY R. BOWERS, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  209, 2010 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court BelowBSuperior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
and for New Castle County  
§ 
 
 STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0807041153  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted:  September 28, 2010 
Decided:  October 19, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 19th day of October 2010, upon consideration of the appellant=s 
brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”), his 
attorney=s motion to withdraw, and the State=s response, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
On March 18, 2010, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
Corey Bowers, guilty of Robbery in the First Degree.  Bowers was 
sentenced to eight years at Level V, suspended after three years minimum 
mandatory, for two years at Level III.  This is Bowers’ direct appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Bowers’ defense counsel (ACounsel@) has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, 
 
2
based upon a careful and complete examination of the record, there are no 
arguably appealable issues.  Counsel states that he provided Bowers with a 
copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and appendix.  
Counsel also asked Bowers to submit any issues that Bowers sought to raise 
on appeal.  Bowers has not raised any issues for this Court’s consideration.  
The appellee, State of Delaware, has responded to the position taken by 
Counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court=s judgment. 
(3) 
The standard and scope of review of a motion to withdraw and 
an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is two-fold.  First, the Court must 
be satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious examination of the record 
and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal.1  Second, the 
Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the 
appeal is so devoid of at least arguably appealable issues that it can be 
decided without an adversary presentation.2 
(4) 
In this case, the Court has reviewed the record carefully and has 
concluded that Bowers’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any 
arguably appealable issue.  We are satisfied that Counsel 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 Id. 
 
3
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly 
determined that Bowers 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/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice