Case Title: Kilgoe v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 679, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHAQUIL KILGOE, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 679, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  Cr. ID 0904007255 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 15, 2010 
Decided: 
April 29, 2010 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of April 2010, 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, Shaquil Kilgoe (Kilgoe), pled guilty 
in June 2009 to one count each of third degree attempted burglary and 
second degree conspiracy.  The Superior Court sentenced Kilgoe to a total 
period of four years at Level V incarceration, to be suspended immediately 
for eighteen months at Level II probation. A violation of probation (VOP) 
report issued after Kilgoe failed to report to probation.  Kilgoe admitted his 
failure to report at a VOP hearing held on November 10, 2009.  The 
 
2 
Superior Court adjudged Kilgoe to be in violation of his probation and 
sentenced him to six months at Level V incarceration with no probation to 
follow.  This is Kilgoe’s appeal from his VOP sentence. 
(2) 
Kilgoe's counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to 
withdraw pursuant to Rule 26(c).  Kilgoe's counsel asserts that, based upon a 
complete and careful examination of the record, there are no arguably 
appealable issues.  By letter, Kilgoe's attorney informed him of the 
provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Kilgoe with a copy of the motion to 
withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Kilgoe also was informed of his right 
to supplement his attorney's presentation.  Kilgoe has raised one issue for the 
Court’s consideration.  He contends that a Level V sentence was too harsh.  
The State has responded to Kilgoe’s argument, as well as to the position 
taken by Kilgoe'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 
 
3 
determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at least arguably 
appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary presentation.1 
(4) 
Appellate review of a sentence generally ends upon a 
determination that the sentence falls within the legal limits.2  In sentencing a 
defendant on a probation violation, the trial court is authorized to impose 
any sentence up to the balance of the suspended sentence then in effect.3  In 
this case, the Superior Court was authorized to impose the full balance of the 
four-year original suspended sentence but chose to sentence Kilgoe to only 
six months at Level V incarceration.  Kilgoe does not argue, and there is 
nothing in the record to reflect, that the sentencing court abused its 
discretion in sentencing Kilgoe as it did.  Accordingly, we find no basis for 
relief on appeal. 
(5) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded 
that Kilgoe’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably 
appealable issue.  We also are satisfied that Kilgoe's counsel has made a 
conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and has properly 
determined that Kilgoe 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 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
3 Pavulak v. State, 880 A.2d 1044, 1046 (Del. 2005). 
 
4 
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