Title: Breslin v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 54, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WILLIAM BRESLIN, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 54, 2009 
 
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. 0704019061 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 24, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 6, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th 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) 
In August 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the appellant, 
William Breslin, of Driving Under the Influence.  In January 2009, the Superior 
Court sentenced Breslin to five years at Level V suspended after nine months for 
one year at Level III probation. 
 
(2) 
On appeal, Breslin’s defense 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.  
 
2
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 Breslin with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief 
and appendix and advised Breslin that he had a right to supplement Counsel’s 
presentation.  Breslin 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. 
 
(4) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Breslin’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 Breslin could not raise a 
meritorious claim in this appeal. 
                                          
 
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
 
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