Title: Neal v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 644, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 5, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DONALD L. NEAL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 644, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  Cr. ID 0605025377 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 2, 2007 
Decided: 
June 5, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of June 2007, 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) 
The defendant-appellant, Donald Neal (Neal), pled guilty to one 
count each of second degree robbery and second degree burglary in 
November 2006.  The Superior Court immediately sentenced Neal to a total 
period of seven years at Level V incarceration to be suspended after serving 
five years for probation.  This is Neal’s direct appeal. 
(2) 
Neal's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Neal's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
 
2
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Neal's attorney informed him of the provisions 
of Rule 26(c) and provided Neal with a copy of the motion to withdraw and 
the accompanying brief.  Neal also was informed of his right to supplement 
his attorney's presentation.  Neal has not raised any issues for this Court's 
consideration.  The State has responded to the position taken by Neal's 
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 Neal’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Neal's 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 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