Case Title: Young v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 500, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAKIA T. YOUNG, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 500, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 1802014580 (N) 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 4, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 21, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellant’s no-merit brief filed under 
Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 14, 2018, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 
Shakia Young, guilty of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, failure to have her 
registration card in her possession, failure to have her driver’s license in her 
possession, and two counts of offensive touching of a law enforcement officer.  The 
Superior Court sentenced Young as follows: (i) for disorderly conduct, a fine of $15, 
suspended; (ii) for resisting arrest, a fine of $15, suspended; (iii) for the failure have 
a registration card in possession, the mandatory fine of $50; (iv) for the failure to 
 
2
have a driver’s license in possession, the mandatory fine of $10; and (v) for the two 
charges of offensive touching of a police officer, a total of 60 days of Level V 
incarceration with credit for time served, suspended for 6 months of Level I 
probation. 
(2) 
On appeal, Young’s counsel (“Counsel”) filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).  Counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable 
issues.  Counsel informed Young of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided 
Young with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  
(3) 
Counsel informed Young of her right to identify any points she wished 
this Court to consider on appeal.  Young has not provided this Court with any points 
for consideration.  The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has moved to 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief filed 
under Rule 26(c), this Court must: (i) be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable issues on appeal; 
and (ii) 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.1   
                                                 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
 
3
(5) 
This Court reviewed the record carefully and concludes that Young’s 
appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We are 
satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
applicable law and properly determined that Young could not raise a meritorious 
claim in this appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice