Title: Suchomel v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 551, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 19, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
EDWARD SUCHOMEL,                      
           
Defendant Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
     
 
 
     
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 551, 2004  
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   Cr. A. Nos. VN02-10-0091-01 
                      VN02-10-0091-02
 
Submitted: May 20, 2005   
   Decided: July 19, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 19th day of July 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s brief 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 26(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the 
State’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The defendant-appellant, Edward Suchomel, pleaded guilty to 
Possession of Heroin Within 300 Feet of a Park.  He was sentenced to 8 years 
incarceration at Level V, to be suspended after 6 months for probation.  In 
December 2003, Suchomel was found to have committed a violation of probation 
(“VOP”).  He was sentenced to 7½ years incarceration at Level V, to be suspended 
for Level IV Crest and Level III Crest Aftercare.  Pursuant to Suchomel’s request, 
the Superior Court modified his sentence on March 2, 2004 to eliminate the Crest 
 
 
-2-
program.  While Suchomel was later charged with a second VOP, a hearing on that 
VOP was never held.   
 
(2) 
While serving his Level V sentence pursuant to the March 2004 
sentencing order, Suchomel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the 
ground that he had not been afforded a hearing in connection with his second VOP.  
On November 19, 2004, the Superior Court held a hearing pursuant to Suchomel’s 
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, with Suchomel present, and imposed the 
March 2, 2004 modified sentence.1  Under that sentencing order, Suchomel was to 
serve 7½ years of Level V mental health counseling and treatment, anger 
management counseling and treatment, and the New Visions program, and, upon 
successful completion, the balance of the sentence to be served at decreasing levels 
of probation.  This is Suchomel’s direct appeal. 
 
(3) 
Suchomel’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 
pursuant to Rule 26(c).  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) the Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a 
conscientious examination of the record and the law for claims that could arguably 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court also dismissed Suchomel’s second VOP and denied his petition for a writ of 
habeas corpus.  As the Superior Court judge explained, the modified sentence that was imposed 
stemmed not from the second VOP, but from a TASC recommendation concerning Suchomel’s 
suitability for mental health treatment.   
 
 
-3-
support the appeal; and (b) the 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.2 
 
(4) 
Suchomel’s counsel asserts that, based upon a careful and complete 
examination of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues.  By letter, 
Suchomel’s counsel informed Suchomel of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and 
provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw, the accompanying brief and 
the complete trial transcript.  Suchomel also was informed of his right to 
supplement his attorney’s presentation.  Suchomel responded with a brief that 
raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  The State has responded to the 
position taken by Suchomel’s counsel as well as the issues raised by Suchomel and 
has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
 
(5) 
Suchomel raises four issues for this Court’s consideration.  He claims 
that: 1) his counsel provided ineffective assistance; 2) his appearance before the 
Superior Court was unnecessarily delayed; 3) the Superior Court judge acted 
arbitrarily and abused his discretion; and 4) the Superior Court judge did not 
conduct a conscientious inquiry at the hearing. 
 
                                                 
2 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). 
 
 
-4-
 
(6) 
Suchomel’s claims are unavailing.  His ineffective assistance of 
counsel claim may not be raised for the first time in his direct appeal.3  His claims 
of impropriety on the part of the Superior Court judge are unsupported by the 
transcript of the November 19, 2004 hearing.  Moreover, Suchomel has made no 
showing that any delay in connection with his sentencing order resulted in any 
prejudice to him. 
 
(7) 
This Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 
Suchomel’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable 
issue.  We also are satisfied that Suchomel’s counsel has made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and has properly determined that Suchomel 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/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
3 Desmond v. State, 654 A.2d 821, 829 (Del. 1994).