Title: Daniels v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 543, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEAIR E. DANIELS, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 543, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0403008204 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 5, 2005 
   Decided: April 22, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 22nd day of April 2005, upon consideration of the appellant's 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his attorney's motion to withdraw, and the 
State's response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant-appellant, Keair 
Daniels, of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and other related 
charges.  The Superior Court sentenced Daniels to a total period of seven 
years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately for eighteen 
months at Level III probation.  This is Daniels’ direct appeal. 
(2) 
Daniels’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Daniels’ counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
 
-2- 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Daniels’ attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Daniels with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Daniels also was informed of his 
right to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Daniels has not raised any 
issues for this Court's consideration.  The State has responded to the position 
taken by Daniels’ 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 Daniels’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Daniels’ 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 Daniels 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/ Jack B. Jacobs 
Justice