Title: Bell v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 337, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
EBONIC BELL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 337, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 141108472  
§   
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 17, 2016 
Decided: 
December 6, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 6th day of December 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, the State’s response, and the record below, it 
appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
After a June 9, 2016 bench trial, the appellant, Ebonic Bell, was found 
guilty of two counts of Illegal Possession of a Non-Controlled Prescription Drug 
and one count of Possession of a Controlled Substance.  For each count of Illegal 
Possession of a Non-Controlled Prescription Drug, Bell was sentenced to six 
months of Level V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation.  
For Possession of a Controlled Substance, Bell was sentenced to one year of Level 
 
2 
V incarceration, suspended for one year of Level II probation.  This is Bell’s direct 
appeal.   
(2) 
On appeal, Bell’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a 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.  Counsel informed Bell of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Bell 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Bell of her right to identify any points she 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Bell has not raised any issues for this 
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), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (ii) 
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.1 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Bell’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3 
We also are satisfied that Bell’s counsel has made a conscientious effort to 
examine the record and the law and has properly determined that Bell could not 
raise a meritorious claim in this 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/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice