Title: Hassan v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 724, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IBNAMIN HASSAN, 
 
 
§ 
§ 
No.  724, 2009 
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. 0905024606  
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: May 26, 2010 
Decided: 
June 24, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
This 24th day of June 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) 
Following a Superior Court jury trial held on November 4 and 
5, 2009, the appellant, Ibnamin Hassan, was found guilty, as charged, of 
Burglary in the Second Degree, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, Assault in 
the Third Degree, Offensive Touching and Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief.  
On December 11, 2009, the Superior Court sentenced Hassan to a total of 
seven years at Level V, one year minimum mandatory, suspended after thirty 
 
2
months for six months at Level IV followed by probation.  This appeal 
followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Hassan’s defense counsel (ACounsel@) has filed a 
brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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 
(3) 
Counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  Counsel 
states that he provided Hassan with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief and appendix.  Counsel also asked Hassan to submit 
any issues that Hassan sought to raise on appeal.  Hassan has not raised any 
issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court=s judgment. 
                                            
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
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Hassan’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Hassan 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