Title: O'Neal v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 632, 2008
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENYON O’NEAL, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 632, 2008 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
Cr. ID No. 0704007283 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2009 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 1, 2009 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of July 2009, 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) 
On October 9, 2008, the appellant, Kenyon O’Neal, pled guilty 
to one count of Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine.  At sentencing on 
December 5, 2008, the Superior Court granted the State’s motion to declare 
O’Neal a habitual offender and sentenced O’Neal to five years at Level V 
imprisonment followed by six months at Level IV.1  This appeal followed. 
                                          
 
1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 4214(a) (2007). 
 
2
 
(2) 
On appeal, O’Neal’s counsel (“Counsel”) 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.2  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.3 
 
(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 O’Neal with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the 
accompanying brief and appendix and the trial transcript and advised O’Neal 
that he had a right to supplement Counsel’s presentation.  O’Neal did not 
submit any points 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. 
                                          
 
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 Id. 
 
3
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that O’Neal’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that 
O’Neal 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