Submitted: May 1, 2014.
Case Closed June 23, 2014.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below--Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. Cr. ID No. 1212003977.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
Randy J. Holland, Justice.
This 5th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the appellant's brief filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (" Rule 26(c)" ), her attorney's motion to withdraw, and the State's response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On January 22, 2013, the appellant, Crystal Lysinger, was indicted on charges of Burglary in the Second Degree, Theft of a Firearm, Criminal Mischief, Theft of a Controlled Substance, and Misdemeanor Theft. On August 15, 2013, Lysinger pleaded guilty to Burglary in the Third Degree (as a lesser-included offense of Burglary in the Second Degree) and Misdemeanor Theft. The remaining offenses, including Theft of a Firearm, Criminal Mischief and Theft of a Controlled Substance, were nolle prossed .
(2) Lysinger was sentenced on October 18, 2013, following a presentence investigation. For Burglary in the Third Degree, Lysinger was sentenced to three years at Level V, suspended after successful completion of the Key Village Program, for three months at Level IV Home Confinement, followed by one year at Level III probation. For Misdemeanor Theft, Lysinger was sentenced to one year at Level V suspended for one year at Level III probation. This is Lysinger's direct appeal.
(3) On appeal, Lysinger's defense counsel (" Counsel" ) has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c) (" Rule 26(c)" ). Counsel asserts that, based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Lysinger responded to Counsel's presentation with a written submission that raises three sentencing issues for the Court's consideration. The State has responded to the position taken by Counsel as well as the issues raised by Lysinger and has moved to affirm the Superior Court's judgment.
(4) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a Rule 26(c) brief and motion to withdraw is twofold. First, the Court must be satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably support the appeal. Second, the Court must conduct its own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of even arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.
(5) This Court's review of a sentence is well-established. A defendant may challenge a sentence on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, based on false or unreliable information, or is the result of judicial bias. Otherwise, appellate review is generally ...