Case Title: Nadel v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 451, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IAN NADEL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 451, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 2103004368 (N) 
§  
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 22, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 29, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 
26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, the Court 
concludes that: 
(1) 
In September 2021, a grand jury charged the appellant, Ian Nadel, with 
multiple sexual offenses involving his girlfriend’s teenaged child.  On June 9, 2022, 
Nadel pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, 
authority, or supervision.  Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to enter a nolle 
prosequi on the remaining charges.  The State also agreed to cap its sentencing 
recommendation to the fifteen-year Level V minimum.  After completion of a 
presentence investigation, the Superior Court sentenced Nadel to twenty-five years 
2 
 
of Level V incarceration, suspended after twenty years for decreasing levels of 
supervision.  This appeal followed. 
(2) 
On appeal, Nadel’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 Nadel of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Nadel 
with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.   
(3) 
Counsel also informed Nadel of his right to identify any points he 
wished this Court to consider on appeal.  Nadel has submitted points for this Court’s 
consideration.  The State has responded to Nadel’s points and has moved to affirm 
the Superior Court’s judgment.   
(4) 
When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 
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 claims; 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   
(5) 
In his points, Nadel argues that that the Superior Court inappropriately 
relied on inapplicable aggravating factors to sentence him to twenty years of non-
 
1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); Leacock v. State, 690 A.2d 926, 927-28 (Del. 1996). 
3 
 
suspended Level V time instead of fifteen years of non-suspended Level V time as 
recommended by the parties.  After careful consideration, we find no merit to 
Nadel’s appeal.   
(6) 
This Court’s review of a sentence is generally limited to whether the 
sentence exceeds statutory limits.2  As the Superior Court reviewed with Nadel 
during his plea colloquy, the sentencing range for first-degree sexual abuse of a child 
by a person of trust, authority, or supervision is fifteen years to life imprisonment.3  
Nadel’s sentence fell within the statutory range.  The Superior Court also confirmed 
during the plea colloquy that Nadel understood the fifteen-year sentencing 
recommendation was just a recommendation, the court was not required to impose 
the sentencing recommendation, and the court could sentence Nadel to up to life 
imprisonment. 
(7) 
Before sentencing Nadel, the Superior Court judge stated that she had 
considered, among other things, the presentence report, the comments of both 
attorneys at sentencing, the victim’s statement, and Nadel’s statements during 
sentencing and the presentence investigation.  The judge identified the aggravating 
factors of undue depreciation of the offense, prior abuse of the victim, position of 
 
2 Mayes v. State, 604 A.2d 839, 842 (Del. 1992). 
3 11 Del. C. § 778(6)(a)(1) (defining first degree sexual abuse of a child by a person of trust, 
authority, or supervision as class A felony); 11 Del. C. § 4205(a)(1) (providing for sentence of 
fifteen years to life imprisonment for class A felonies). 
4 
 
trust, and vulnerability of the victim.   The record reflects that Nadel sexually abused 
the victim, in the house where she lived with her mother and Nadel, beginning when 
the victim was less than sixteen-years-old.  Under these circumstances, the Superior 
Court could conclude that the aggravating factors weighed in favor of a sentence 
greater than the fifteen-year minimum sentence recommended by the parties.    
(8) 
Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Nadel’s appeal 
is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue.  We also are 
satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine the record and the 
law and has properly determined that Nadel could not raise a meritorious claim in 
this appeal.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.  The motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
       Chief Justice